From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:35:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20100527143508.GA30117@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20100526120242.5c9b73ad@schatten.dmk.lab> <20100526133721.602633b2@schatten.dmk.lab> <20100526142430.327ccbc4@schatten.dmk.lab> <20100526141612.3e2e0443@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100527003943.07c17f85@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100527140655.GA28048@srcf.ucam.org> <1274970531.27810.5024.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:40635 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755177Ab0E0Of3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2010 10:35:29 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1274970531.27810.5024.camel@twins> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Alan Cox , Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Florian Mickler , Vitaly Wool , LKML , Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 04:28:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 15:06 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > one way which indicates to the scheduler that tasks in TASK_RUNNING > > should be scheduled, and when the session is idle we set the flag the > > other way and all processes in that cgroup get shifted to > > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE or something. > > What's wrong with simply making the phone beep loudly and displaying: > bouncing cows is preventing your phone from sleeping! Well, primarily that it's possible to design an implementation where it *doesn't* prevent your phone froms sleeping, but also because a given application may justifiably be preventing your phone from sleeping for a short while. What threshold do you use to determine the difference? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org