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

[Florian Mickler]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 04:35:34 -0700
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 2010/5/28 Florian Mickler <florian@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> > It sounds like it could save some duplication of effort to integrate
> > suspend into the idle-framework. "Purpose-fulness" could be just
> > another measure of "idle".
> >
> 
> To me idle means that no threads are ready to run and no interrupts are pending.

I misused the term "idle".  I tried to express this by "quoting" it.

> 
> I don't think we can plug suspend in as a cpu idle state. 1. we want
> to suspend even the cpu is not idle. 2. starting suspend will cause
> the cpu to not be idle.
> 

yeah. it would have to move out of the cpu-specific context. it would
be a more general "system-state" thing.

if the properties of the state's are well expressed, it does not matter
that starting suspend will cause the cpu to not be idle, because our
target-state(suspend) has better properties than any other state.

(or maybe there needs to be a "state-transition-in-flight" flag.)

if we take the "approximated duration of staying in that state" into
account, we could provoke the pm-framework to always suspend if no
constraint(i.e. blocker) is there.

But really. I think I can't implement something like that.
Also I really have _no_ idea how much work this would be.

_And_ I am not really shure if this is a better approach than the
current solution.

Just an idea. 

Cheers,
Flo



--
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/