Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 22:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: david@lang.hm
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        arve@android.com, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, pavel@ucw.cz,
        florian@mickler.org, rjw@sisk.pl, stern@rowland.harvard.edu,
        swetland@google.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread
In-Reply-To: <20100801210548.23f77ff6@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008012153300.25170@asgard.lang.hm>
References: <20100731175841.GA9367@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100731215214.2543c07e@infradead.org> <20100801054816.GI2470@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100731230101.7cc1d8c7@infradead.org> <20100801191228.GL2470@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100801204026.GH31324@thunk.org>
 <20100802030304.GU2470@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100801210548.23f77ff6@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1471
Lines: 30

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> I'm a little worried that this whole "I need to block suspend" is
> temporary. Yes today there is silicon from ARM and Intel where suspend
> is a heavy operation, yet at the same time it's not all THAT heavy
> anymore.... at least on the Intel side it's good enough to use pretty
> much all the time (when the screen is off for now, but that's a memory
> controller issue more than anything else). I'm pretty sure the ARM guys
> will not be far behind.

remember that this 'block suspend' is really 'block overriding the fact 
that there are still runable processes and suspending anyway"

having it labeled as 'suspend blocker' or even 'wakelock' makes it sound 
as if it blocks any attempt to suspend, and I'm not sure that's what's 
really intended. Itsounds like the normal syspend process would continue 
to work, just this 'ignore if these other apps are busy' mode of operation 
would not work.

which makes me wonder, would it be possible to tell the normal idle 
detection mechanism to ignore specific processes when deciding if it 
should suspend or not? how about only considering processes in one cgroup 
when deciding to suspend and ignoring all others?

David Lang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/