Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Thursday 13 May 2010, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> [100513 07:11]:
> > On Wed, 12 May 2010, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > Some general comments on the suspend blockers/wakelock/opportunistic
> > > suspend v6 patch series, posted here:
> > > 
> > >     https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2010-April/025146.html
> > > 
> > > The comments below are somewhat telegraphic in the interests of 
> > > readability - more specific comments to follow in later E-mails. I am 
> > > indebted to those of us who discussed these issues at LPC last year and 
> > > ELC this year for several stimulating discussions.
> > > 
> > > There are several general problems with the design of opportunistic
> > > suspend and suspend-blocks.
> > > 
> > > 1. The opportunistic suspend code bypasses existing Linux kernel code,
> > >    such as timers and the scheduler, that indicates when code
> > >    needs to run, and when the system is idle.
> > 
> > Whoa!  That's not my understanding at all.
> > 
> > As I see it, opportunistic suspend doesn't bypass any code that isn't 
> > already bypassed by the existing suspend code.  Users can do
> > 
> > 	echo mem >/sys/power/state
> > 
> > whenever they want, without regard to kernel timers and the scheduler 
> > (other than the fact that the user's thread must be running in order to 
> > carry out the write, of course).
> 
> The difference between echo mem > /sys/power/state and suspend blocks
> is that with suspend blocks the system keeps running.

Care to elaborate?

Rafael