On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:45:06 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 02:41 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 01:38 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > >> > This of course will lead to a scattering of suspend blockers into any > > >> > drivers/subsystems considered "useful", which by looking through > > >> > current > > >> > Android kernels is many of them. > > >> > > >> That depends on the maintainers of these subsystems, who still have the > > >> power > > >> to reject requested changes. > > > > > > So as a scheduler maintainer I'm going to merge a patch that does a > > > suspend_blocker when the runqueue's aren't empty... how about that? > > > > > > > I don't know if you are serious, since the all the runqueues are never > > empty while suspending, this would disable opportunistic suspend > > altogether. > > So why again was this such a great scheme? Go fix your userspace to not > not run when not needed. Hi Peter! This was already mentioned in one of these threads. The summary is: The device this kernel is running on dosn't want to (or can) rely on userspace to save power. This is because it is an open system, without an app-store or the like. Everyone can run what he wants. So anything relying on (all) userspace solves a different problem. Cheers, Flo > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
