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 21:02:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20100527200217.GA7449@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1274982779.27810.5708.camel@twins> <20100527175719.GD3543@srcf.ucam.org> <1274983333.27810.5744.camel@twins> <20100527181433.GG3543@srcf.ucam.org> <20100527200313.5c532f2f@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20100527191302.GC5703@srcf.ucam.org> <20100527205009.391803b6@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:36649 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757117Ab0E0UCc (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2010 16:02:32 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100527205009.391803b6@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Alan Stern , Thomas Gleixner , Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, LKML , Florian Mickler , felipe.balbi@nokia.com, Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux PM On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:50:09PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > So I guess if you are driving this rom user space (which I take it you > are given you talk about housekeeping) > > foreach app we need to suspend > kick app to suspend (signal) > (policy) kick harder if needed (SIGSTOP/bitch/shall I > kill it dialogue) This would need to be atomic, but in any case: 1) Policy decision is made 2) Wakeup event is received by task 3) Task gets stopped between receiving the event and handing it off to policy agent At which point you suspend when you should have remained awake. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org