Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 08:29:12 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        david@lang.hm, Brian Swetland <swetland@google.com>,
        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,
        peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, menage@google.com,
        david-b@pacbell.net, James.Bottomley@suse.de, arjan@infradead.org,
        swmike@swm.pp.se, galibert@pobox.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three
Message-ID: <20100813152912.GE2511@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20100808213821.GD3635@thunk.org>
 <20100809112453.77210acc@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
 <20100809181638.GI3026@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <AANLkTikwHaKpLdRdxmZj6JDJnsZ+o-jzbVcXhRW3Jmd9@mail.gmail.com>
 <20100811222854.GJ2516@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <AANLkTimahmGikeai8QnAxCy45deT00-6T7h-eA-NqL4G@mail.gmail.com>
 <20100812010612.GL2516@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <AANLkTinVV1NVHFPeO0p_e2pCtNwTNB932q9tbu9MMD3_@mail.gmail.com>
 <20100812034435.GA7403@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20100813115751.3bbbafbd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100813115751.3bbbafbd@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1175
Lines: 25

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:57:51AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Think in terms of an ARM laptop. What good is opportunistic suspend if
> > > it's not going to help when the laptop is being used?
> > 
> > For when the laptop is not being used, presumably.
> 
> Or in time between keystrokes for most of the platform (backlight
> excepted). The Intel MID x86 devices are at the point that suspend/resume
> time on x86 is being hurt by the kernel rewriting smp alternatives as we
> go from 2 processors live to 1 and back.

Given that you are talking about going from 2 processors to 1 and back,
I would guess that you are not actually talking about suspend/resume,
which is a system-wide thing rather than a CPU-by-CPU thing.  I am not
sure whether you are using CPU hotplug or invoking SMP alternatives once
all but one CPU is idle.

Can't say that I can tell exactly what pit you are digging for me here.  ;-)

							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/