From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 20:25:22 +0100 Message-ID: <20100513192522.GA19256@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20100513191717.GA3428@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:55890 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755816Ab0EMTZt (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 May 2010 15:25:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100513191717.GA3428@atomide.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Alan Stern , Paul Walmsley , Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Linux-pm mailing list , Kernel development list , Tejun Heo , Oleg Nesterov , Kevin Hilman , magnus.damm@gmail.com, Theodore Ts'o , mark gross , Arjan van de Ven , Geoff Smith , Brian Swetland , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt?= Cousson , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Vitaly Wool , Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:17:17PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > The suspend blocks seems like a hack to spam filter good and bad > apps from timer usage point of view. Applications are categorized > as good or bad depending if they grab a susped blocker or not. > > I believe categorizing the apps should be instead done with some > timer flags or cgroups instead. I agree, but we have no mechanism for implementing that in a race-free way. We don't even have a realistical proposal for what that mechanism would look like. Should we refuse bread today for the promise of cake tomorrow? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org