Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?

Scott E. Preece
2006-09-03T21:34:46Z

| From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
|
| On Sunday, 3 September 2006 18:25, David Singleton wrote:
| > On 9/2/06, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
| > >
| > > That depends on the definition, but I think of suspend states as the ones
| > > that require processes to be frozen before they can be entered. IMHO it is
| > > quite clear that such states cannot be handled in the same way as those
| > > that do not require the freezing of processes, so they are not the same.
| >
| > You are correct, processes do need to be frozen before a suspend.
| > That's the prepare to suspend part of the suspend process, and
| > the transtition is the suspending and finish is the un-freezing
| > of the processes to resume execution.
| >
| > And those same steps are the same steps required to transition the
| > system to a new operating point, whether it's suspend or change
| > from 1.4GHz to 600MHz.
|
| There are only a few states that require the processes to be frozen and I
| think that's a good enough reason to handle them separately.

---

But, surely that distinction can be handled in the implementation behind
the interface, rather than exsposed in the interface. Does that
distinction matter to the policy manager? I would argue that it
increases the latency, which would be important to the policy manager,
but that the nature of the latency isn't important to making a policy
decision, and the proposed interface already exposes the latency as
something that can be used in making transition decisions.

scott

--
scott preece
motorola mobile devices, il67, 1800 s. oak st., champaign, il 61820
e-mail: preece@motorola.com fax: +1-217-384-8550
phone: +1-217-384-8589 cell: +1-217-433-6114 pager: 2174336114@vtext.com