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

Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-26T10:49:30Z

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.
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org