On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > > The two of you are talking at cross purposes. Thomas is referring to
> > > idle-based suspend and Matthew is talking about forced suspend.
> >
> > Yes, and forced suspend to disk is the same as force suspend to disk,
> > which has both nothing to do with sensible resource management.
>
> If I understand correctly, you are saying that all the untrusted
> applications should run with QoS(NONE). Then they could do whatever
> they wanted without causing any interference.
>
> And with idle-based power management (rather than forced suspend),
> there would be no issue with wakeup events getting unduly delayed.
>
> Unless one of those events was meant for an untrusted application. Is
> that the source of the difficulty?
Probably, but that's not solved by suspend blockers either as I
explained several times now. Because those untrusted apps either lack
blocker calls or are not allowed to use them, so the blocker does not
help for those either.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
