Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755306Ab0HBUgS (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:36:18 -0400 Received: from e7.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.137]:56374 "EHLO e7.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752388Ab0HBUgQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:36:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 13:36:09 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Arjan van de Ven , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arve@android.com, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, pavel@ucw.cz, florian@mickler.org, 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: <20100802203609.GG2405@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20100731175841.GA9367@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100801154708.19817b75@infradead.org> <20100802011006.GS2470@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201008021552.20505.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201008021552.20505.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2766 Lines: 55 On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 03:52:20PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, August 02, 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 03:47:08PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 12:12:28 -0700 > > > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > ... > > > Another one: freezing whole cgroups..... we have that today. it > > > actually works quite well.... of course the hard part is the decision > > > what to put in which cgroup, and at what frequency and duration you let > > > cgroups run. > > > > Indeed, the Android guys seemed to be quite excited by cgroup freezing > > until they thought about the application-classification problem. > > Seems like it should be easy for some types of applications, but I do > > admit that apps can have non-trivial and non-obvious dependencies. > > This isn't more difficult than deciding which applications will be allowed to > use wakelocks (in the wakelocks world). It actually seems to be pretty much > equivalent to me. :-) If I understand correctly, the problem they were concerned about was instead "given that a certain set of apps are permitted to use wakelocks, which of the other apps can safely be frozen when the display blanks itself." > > > on the suspend blockers for drivers; the linux device runtime PM is > > > effectively doing the same things; it allows drivers to suspend/resume > > > individually (with a very nice API/programming model I should say) based > > > on usage. And it works on a tree level, so that it's relatively easy > > > to do things like "I want to go to , but > > > only if ". This is obviously > > > an important functionality for all low power devices, ARM or x86. > > > Suspend blockers had this functionality as part of what it did (they do > > > more obviously) but I'd wager that the current Linux infrastructure is > > > outright nicer. > > > > This is what Rafael has been working on? > > If you mean the runtime PM framework, then yes, I've been working on it. > > > Of course, the Android guys also want to pay attention to which apps > > are running as well as to the state of devices on the system. > > In fact the runtime PM framework is also important to Android, because it > can be used in there, for example, to implement the "early suspend" thing > I referred to in one of my previous messages in this thread. Now we just need to convince the Android guys of that. ;-) Thanx, Paul -- 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/