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

Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-05-27T23:50:24Z

On Friday 28 May 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:55:13 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 27 May 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Yes I appreciate what suspend blockers are trying to do. Now how does
> > > that connect with my first sentence ?
> >
> > I guess what Matthew wanted to say was that you couldn't use ACPI S3 as
> > a very deep CPU idle state, because of the way wakeup sources are set up
> > for it, while you could use it for aggressive power management with suspend
> > blockers as proposed by Arve.
>
> Which is a nonsense. Because the entire Gnome desktop and KDE, and
> OpenOffice and Firefox and friends would need fitting out with
> suspend blockers.
>
> x86 hardware is moving to fix these problems (at least on handheld
> devices initially). Look up the C6 power idle, and S0i1 and S0i3
> standby states. I reckon the laptop folks can probably get the hardware
> fixed well before anyone can convert the entire PC desktop to include
> blockers.

To clarify, I'm not suggesting to spread suspend blockers all over the
universe.

Rafael