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

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/5/30 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>:
...
> 
> I think it makes more sense to block suspend while wakeup events are
> pending than blocking it everywhere timers are used by code that could
> be called while handling wakeup events or other critical work. Also,
> even if you did block suspend everywhere timers where used you still
> have the race where a wakeup interrupt happens right after you decided
> to suspend. In other words, you still need to block suspend in all the
> same places as with the current opportunistic suspend code, so what is
> the benefit of delaying suspend until idle?

Assume for a while that you don't use suspend blockers, OK?  I realize you
think that anything else doesn't make sense, but evidently some other people
have that opinion about suspend blockers.

Now, under that assumption, I think it _generally_ is reasonable to make the
system go into full suspend if everything (ie. CPUs and I/O) has been idle
for sufficiently long time and there are no QoS requirements that aren't
compatible with full system suspend.

Rafael
--
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/