Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:

> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> > > The two of you are talking at cross purposes.  Thomas is referring to 
> > > idle-based suspend and Matthew is talking about forced suspend.
> > 
> > Yes, and forced suspend to disk is the same as force suspend to disk,
> > which has both nothing to do with sensible resource management.
> 
> If I understand correctly, you are saying that all the untrusted 
> applications should run with QoS(NONE).  Then they could do whatever 
> they wanted without causing any interference.
> 
> And with idle-based power management (rather than forced suspend), 
> there would be no issue with wakeup events getting unduly delayed.
> 
> Unless one of those events was meant for an untrusted application.  Is 
> that the source of the difficulty?

Probably, but that's not solved by suspend blockers either as I
explained several times now. Because those untrusted apps either lack
blocker calls or are not allowed to use them, so the blocker does not
help for those either.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/