Re: [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

Arve Hjønnevåg
2010-05-26T10:53:31Z

2010/5/26 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 03:40 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> 2010/5/26 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>:
>> > On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 03:25 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >
>> >> and on systems where the
>> >> same power state can be used from idle and suspend, we use suspend so
>> >> we can stay in the low power state for minutes to hours instead of
>> >> milliseconds to seconds.
>> >
>> > So don't you think working on making it possible for systems to be idle
>> > _that_ long would improve things for everybody? as opposed to this
>> > auto-suspend which only improves matters for those that (can) use it?
>>
>> I'm not preventing anyone from working on improving this. Currently
>> both the kernel and our user-space code polls way too much. I don't
>> think it is reasonable to demand that no one should run any user-space
>> code with periodic timers when we have not even fixed the kernel to
>> not do this.
>
> All I'm saying is that merging a stop-gap measure will decrease the
> urgency and thus the time spend fixing the actual issues while adding
> the burden of maintaining this stop-gap measure.
>

Fixing the actually issue means fixing all user-space code, and
replacing most x86 hardware. I don't think keeping this feature out of
the kernel will significantly accelerate this.

--
Arve Hjønnevåg