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

[Matthew Garrett]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 04:21:09PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:

> You're the one mentioning x86, not me.  I already explained that some
> MSM hardware (the G1 for example) has lower power consumption in S3
> (which I'm using as an ACPI shorthand for suspend to ram) than any
> suspend from idle C state.  The fact that current x86 hardware has the
> same problem may be true, but it's not entirely relevant.

As long as you can set a wakeup timer, an S state is just a C state with 
side effects. The significant one is that entering an S state stops the 
process scheduler and any in-kernel timers. I don't think Google care at 
all about whether suspend is entered through an explicit transition or 
something hooked into cpuidle - the relevant issue is that they want to 
be able to express a set of constraints that lets them control whether 
or not the scheduler keeps on scheduling, and which doesn't let them 
lose wakeup events in the process.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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/