Re: [linux-pm] suspend blockers & Android integration

[Vitaly Wool]

2010/6/6 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 05:26:09PM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
>> 2010/6/6 Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > Holding a suspend blocker is entirely orthogonal to runtime pm. The
>> > "whole kernel" will not be "active" - it can continue to hit the same
>> > low power state in the idle loop, and any runtime pm implementation in
>> > the drivers will continue to be active.
>>
>> Yeah, that might also be the case, But then again, what's the use of
>> suspend blockers in this situation?
>
> The difference between idle-based suspend and opportunistic suspend is
> that the former will continue to wake up for timers and will never be
> entered if something is using CPU, whereas the latter will be entered
> whenever no suspend blocks are held. The problem with opportunistic
> suspend is that you might make the decision to suspend simultaneusly
> with a wakeup event being received. Suspend blocks facilitate
> synchronisation between the kernel and userspace to ensure that all such
> events have been consumed and handld appropriately.

Right, and then you start taking suspend blockers in kernel here and
there which eventually interferes with runtime PM.
So I don't buy the "orthogonality" point. Generally speaking, it's not true.

~Vitaly
--
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/