Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 07:44:29 +0200
From: Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>
To: david@lang.hm
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>, 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, 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
Message-ID: <20100802074429.73a9dfd9@schatten.dmk.lab>
In-Reply-To: <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>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1008012153300.25170@asgard.lang.hm>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1812
Lines: 41

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 22:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
david@lang.hm wrote:

> 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

We then get again to the "runnable tasks" problem that was
discussed earlier... the system get's "deadlock-prone" if a subset of
tasks is not run. 
Interprocess dependencies are not so easy to get right in general.

Cheers,
Flo
--
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/