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

Alan Stern
2010-05-27T21:49:54Z

On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> > The two of you are talking at cross purposes. Thomas is referring to
> > idle-based suspend and Matthew is talking about forced suspend.
>
> Yes, and forced suspend to disk is the same as force suspend to disk,
> which has both nothing to do with sensible resource management.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that all the untrusted
applications should run with QoS(NONE). Then they could do whatever
they wanted without causing any interference.

And with idle-based power management (rather than forced suspend),
there would be no issue with wakeup events getting unduly delayed.

Unless one of those events was meant for an untrusted application. Is
that the source of the difficulty?

Alan Stern