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 19:20:58 +0100 Message-ID: <20100527182058.GL3543@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20100527140655.GA28048@srcf.ucam.org> <20100527155201.GA31937@srcf.ucam.org> <20100527165931.GB1062@srcf.ucam.org> <20100527172343.GB2468@srcf.ucam.org> <20100527184918.3d090921@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100527175030.GA3543@srcf.ucam.org> <20100527191716.16b4a8e3@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100527191716.16b4a8e3@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Arve =?iso-8859-1?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= , Florian Mickler , Vitaly Wool , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 07:17:16PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > Actually, the reverse - there's no terribly good way to make PCs work > > with scheduler-based suspend, but there's no reason why they wouldn't > > work with the current opportunistic suspend implementation. > > If one works so does the other. Not at all. The entire point of opportunistic suspend is that I don't care is currently in TASK_RUNNABLE or has a timer that's due to expire in 100msec - based on policy (through not having any held suspend blockers), I'll go to sleep. That's easily possible on PCs. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org