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

Alan Stern
2010-05-28T17:01:35Z

On Fri, 28 May 2010, Alan Cox wrote:

> > I think Arve's concern was the representation of the "I care, but only
> > a little" or "just low enough to ensure threads must run" level which
> > is what suspend blockers would map to (low enough to ensure we
> > shouldn't halt the world but not necessarily implying a hard latency
> > constraint beyond that).
>
> That's why I suggested "manyana" (can't get accents for mañana in a
> define) or perhaps "dreckly"[1]. They are both words that mean "at some
> point" but in a very very vague and 'relax it'll happen eventually' sense.

A USA-style equivalent phrase might be "Real Soon Now". Except that it
conveys a strong implication that the event will never happen...

> > That makes sense -- and as I've mentioned elsewhere, we're really not
> > super picky about naming -- if it turns out that
> > wakelocks/suspendblockers were shorthand for "request a qos constraint
> > that ensures that threads are running", we'll be able to get things
> > done just as well as we do now.
>
> Cool. I think they are or at least they are close enough that nobody will
> notice the join ;)

Why are suspend blockers needed if you're going to put all untrusted
apps in a cgroup and freeze/stop them? Or is that not what you're
planning to do?

ALan Stern