From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 19:13:11 +0200
Message-ID: <1274980391.27810.5552.camel@twins>
References: <20100526142430.327ccbc4@schatten.dmk.lab>
	 <20100526141612.3e2e0443@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	 <AANLkTin97MMu-XO_Lk-snefBWz2ymhS0Qi1y1RxLwdVA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20100527003943.07c17f85@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	 <20100527140655.GA28048@srcf.ucam.org>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005271642440.3032@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20100527155201.GA31937@srcf.ucam.org>
	 <20100527171615.15a1fd3d@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	 <20100527161943.GA32764@srcf.ucam.org>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005271901020.3032@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20100527170740.GA1980@srcf.ucam.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100527170740.GA1980@srcf.ucam.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Arve =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= <arve@android.com>, Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 18:07 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:04:38PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Sure, if you're not using opportunistic suspend then I don't think 
> > > there's any real need for the userspace side of this. The question is 
> > > how to implement something with the useful properties of opportunistic 
> > > suspend without without implementing something pretty much equivalent to 
> > > the userspace suspend blockers. I've sent another mail expressing why I 
> > > don't think your proposed QoS style behaviour provides that.
> > 
> > Opportunistic suspend is just a deep idle state, nothing else.
> 
> No. The useful property of opportunistic suspend is that nothing gets 
> scheduled. That's fundamentally different to a deep idle state.

I think Alan and Thomas but certainly I am saying is that you can get to
the same state without suspend.

Either you suspend (forcefully don't schedule stuff), or you end up
blocking all tasks on QoS/resource limits and end up with an idle system
that goes into a deep idle state (aka suspend).

So why isn't blocking every task on a QoS/resource good enough for you?