Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1759025Ab0HDUtO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 4 Aug 2010 16:49:14 -0400
Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:52747 "EHLO
	cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751306Ab0HDUtB (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 4 Aug 2010 16:49:01 -0400
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 21:48:39 +0100
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
        Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@android.com>, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 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
Message-ID: <20100804204839.GA4743@srcf.ucam.org>
References: <20100801054816.GI2470@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100731230101.7cc1d8c7@infradead.org> <20100801191228.GL2470@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100801154708.19817b75@infradead.org> <20100802011006.GS2470@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <AANLkTi=a-1hn_oL=i-=RKK9xOur+4mQjTRut+aiXtYkE@mail.gmail.com> <20100803183447.0275c134@infradead.org> <20100804163216.GB24163@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100804163509.GA31523@srcf.ucam.org> <20100804204208.GA21452@elf.ucw.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100804204208.GA21452@elf.ucw.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
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: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 700
Lines: 17

On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:42:08PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:

> This came like a bit of a shock to me ("why do they make it so complex
> then"), but... it also means that as soon as you are able to stop
> "unwanted" processing, you can just leave normal cpuidle mechanisms to
> deal with the rest...

How do you differentiate between "unwanted" and "wanted" processing in 
the same task in a race-free manner? 

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
--
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/