From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753085Ab1IZURg (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:17:36 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:60171 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751077Ab1IZURf convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:17:35 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] [RFC] Proposal for optimistic suspend idea. From: Peter Zijlstra To: John Stultz Cc: lkml , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , arve@android.com, markgross@thegnar.org, Alan Stern , amit.kucheria@linaro.org, farrowg@sg.ibm.com, "Dmitry Fink (Palm GBU)" , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, khilman@ti.com, Magnus Damm , mjg@redhat.com, Thomas Gleixner Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:16:04 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1317064434-1829-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> References: <1317064434-1829-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3- Message-ID: <1317068164.1763.39.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 12:13 -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > For now, I'd just be interested in what folks think about the concept with > regards to the wakelock discussions. Where it might not be sufficient? Or > what other disadvantages might it have? Are there any varients to this > idea that would be better? I would like to know why people still think wakelocks are remotely sane? >>From where I'm sitting they're utter crap.. _WHY_ do you need to suspend anything? What's wrong with regular idle? So no, you've got a massive major NAK for anything touching the scheduler for this utter braindamage.