From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755008Ab0EFSot (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2010 14:44:49 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:54553 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751275Ab0EFSos (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2010 14:44:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 19:44:18 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Brian Swetland , Alan Stern , mark gross , markgross@thegnar.org, Len Brown , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Kernel development list , Jesse Barnes , Oleg Nesterov , Tejun Heo , Linux-pm mailing list , Wu Fengguang , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 1/8] PM: Add suspend block api. Message-ID: <20100506184418.GA30669@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20100505234755.GI29604@atomide.com> <20100506134015.GA23426@srcf.ucam.org> <20100506170151.GA30928@atomide.com> <20100506170956.GA28104@srcf.ucam.org> <20100506171453.GC30928@atomide.com> <20100506172201.GA28578@srcf.ucam.org> <20100506173807.GD30928@atomide.com> <20100506174331.GA29103@srcf.ucam.org> <20100506183335.GE30928@atomide.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100506183335.GE30928@atomide.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 11:33:35AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Matthew Garrett [100506 10:39]: > > On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 10:38:08AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > If your userspace keeps polling and has runaway timers, then you > > > could suspend it's parent process to idle the system? > > > > If your userspace is suspended, how does it process the events that > > generated a system wakeup? If we had a good answer to that then suspend > > blockers would be much less necessary. > > Well if your hardware runs off-while-idle or even just > retention-while-idle, then the basic shell works just fine waking up > every few seconds or so. And the untrusted userspace code that's waiting for a network packet? Adding a few seconds of latency isn't an option here. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org