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 S1753641Ab0E1SQZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 28 May 2010 14:16:25 -0400
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:48175 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753450Ab0E1SQY (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 28 May 2010 14:16:24 -0400
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Zygo Blaxell <vger-linux-omap-esightcorp@mailtoo.hungrycats.org>
Cc: Brian Swetland <swetland@google.com>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
       Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@nokia.com>, tytso@mit.edu,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>,
       Linux PM <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
       "Balbi Felipe (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" <felipe.balbi@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <20100528172713.GA7444@gibbs.hungrycats.org>
References: <20100528114123.GA22947@srcf.ucam.org>
	 <4BFFB681.1000105@nokia.com>
	 <AANLkTim04ZfMcPHRB2D_bqcAuguaGwySH2b6repuYLkk@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4BFFC5DF.5030504@nokia.com> <20100528133900.GG26177@thunk.org>
	 <4BFFCFC7.7070302@nokia.com> <20100528142124.GA26733@srcf.ucam.org>
	 <AANLkTilj6i7Qi-eh7e3WWeh4zxKALqr-0yhAvWKis52t@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20100528160628.7c121dab@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	 <AANLkTin3suKfGBSfiDj0n8ztY8UiHzr4af_Cr0SPOevY@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20100528172713.GA7444@gibbs.hungrycats.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:16:20 +0200
Message-ID: <1275070580.1645.379.camel@laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 
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 Fri, 2010-05-28 at 13:27 -0400, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> From my reading of this thread, there's a lot of overlap between
> suspendblockers and constraints.  Many use cases are served equally
> well with one or the other, 

If using suspend-blockers, 

Please explain to me how:

- I will avoid the cpu going into some idle state for which the wakeup
latency is larger than my RT app fancies?

- to avoid some tasks from being serviced by the filesystems whilst
others are? (ionice on steroids).

- does my sporadic task (with strict bandwidth budget) not suffer
bandwidth inversion?


suspend blockers do a bit of each of that, but none of it in a usable
fashion.