From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/13] PM: wakelock: Abort task freezing if a wake lock is held. Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 00:00:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20090208230012.GT6369@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1233802226-23386-7-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1233802226-23386-8-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1233802226-23386-9-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1233802226-23386-10-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <20090205085531.GC2077@elf.ucw.cz> <20090205094932.GL2077@elf.ucw.cz> <20090205100217.GO2077@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Arve Hj?nnev?g Cc: ncunningham@crca.org.au, u.luckas@road.de, swetland@google.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thu 2009-02-05 19:42:13, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote: > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > ...so I guess I'll wait for extended description. > PM: wakelock: Abort task freezing if a wakelock is locked. > > If a wakelock is locked, suspend will fail anyway. Since try_to_freeze_tasks > can take up to 20 seconds to complete or fail, aborting as soon as someone > locks a wakelock (e.g. from an interrupt handler) improves the worst case > wakeup latency. Well, I'd rather fix the cases when freeze() takes too long. If that is infeasible, yes, I guess we can do this. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html