From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6) Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 22:35:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20100517213530.GB2395@srcf.ucam.org> References: <87aas2azc5.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <20100514231510.GG16989@thunk.org> <87r5laa4oc.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <20100517193440.GA32066@srcf.ucam.org> <20100517210615.GB1873@srcf.ucam.org> <20100517212437.GA2190@srcf.ucam.org> <1274131764.25625.54.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1274131764.25625.54.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Daniel Walker Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jesse Bar nes , Oleg Nesterov , "linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org" , Liam Girdwood , Len Brown , Jacob Pan , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , Linus WALLEIJ , "tytso@mit.edu" , Geoff Smith , Brian Swetland , Mark Brown , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton , Wu Fengguang , Arjan van de Ven List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 02:29:24PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 22:24 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > I was more thinking about something new, that isn't freezing anything. > > > The only purpose would be to group the stuff that CPUidle can ignore, > > > and let CPUidle ignore it, so that the system can still be idled. > > > > So they'd be on the runqeue but wouldn't factor into cpuidle's > > calculations of when the next wakeup should be? Ok. I think that still > > leaves you with the same problem - you're not scheduling that task, so > > how do you know to execute it when a network packet is received? I think > > you also still have the race condition. > > Couldn't you special case the network packet situation ? Like the idle > loop could take into account that there are packets flowing through the > networking stack that may need to get handled. And once you've done that for every wakeup source you have something that looks pretty much like suspend blockers. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org