From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758234Ab0EFRfW (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 6 May 2010 13:35:22 -0400
Received: from fifo99.com ([67.223.236.141]:55641 "EHLO fifo99.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752991Ab0EFRfV (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 6 May 2010 13:35:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 1/8] PM: Add suspend block api.
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>, Brian Swetland <swetland@google.com>,
       Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
       mark gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>, markgross@thegnar.org,
       Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
       Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>,
       Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
       Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
       Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100506171453.GC30928@atomide.com>
References: <20100505202826.GB7450@linux.intel.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1005051705200.1885-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
	 <z2ta55d774e1005051437heb584584q6afca0b4b254d5d0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20100505234755.GI29604@atomide.com> <20100506134015.GA23426@srcf.ucam.org>
	 <20100506170151.GA30928@atomide.com> <20100506170956.GA28104@srcf.ucam.org>
	 <20100506171453.GC30928@atomide.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 10:35:11 -0700
Message-ID: <1273167311.20494.13.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 10:14 -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com> [100506 10:05]:
> > On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 10:01:51AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > 
> > > Or are you suspending constantly, tens of times per minute even if
> > > there's no user activity?
> > 
> > In this case you'd be repeatedly trying to suspend until the modem 
> > driver stopped blocking it. It's pretty much a waste.
> 
> But then the userspace knows you're getting data from the modem, and
> it can kick some inactivity timer that determines when to try to
> suspend next.

If the idle thread was doing the suspending then the inactivity timer by
it's self could block suspend. As long as the idle thread was setup to
check for timers. I'm sure that _isn't_ the point your trying to make.
It just makes gobs more sense to me that the idle thread does the
suspending .. Your idle, so depending on how long your idle then you
suspend.

Daniel