On Monday 28 May 2007, Alan Stern wrote:In fact that makes a heck of a lot more sense to me from the conceptual point of view. From the hardware perspective, the task of preparing to enter true suspend states (STR, or suspend for ACPI; embedded systems have more options) focusses on what I/O signals are disabled. Once the relevant I/O signals are first idled, then disabled, the CPU can do whatever it likes. Whether it runs or not is purely a workload decision... Remember too that not all systems suffer from the constraints that ACPI decrees. In particular, it's not uncommon that some parts of the system be active in certain suspend states. The whole point is to turn off as much of the system as possible, especially the high power portions, while letting work proceed. Turning off some clocks and peripherals doesn't need to imply turning them all off, or disabling DMA ... and should not need to be triggered by a user (or userspace tool) explicitly saying "go into STR". Exactly. "Selective suspend" of parts of the system is a far more general model. It fits well with runtime power management, degrades smoothly to states where memory goes into self-refresh (maybe the system idle loop when NO_HZ is being effective) or even hibernation (as discussed elsewhere). - Dave -
| Adrian Bunk | Re: Linux 2.6.21 |
| Linus Torvalds | Linux 2.6.21-rc2 |
| WANG Cong | [-mm Patch] UML: fix a building error |
| Roland McGrath | Re: [PATCH 0/5] ftrace: to kill a daemon |
git: | |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Patrick McHardy | Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Theodore Ts'o | Re: cc1 fails silently |
| Michael Nolan | Power routines on notebook cause kernel panic |
| Marc Peters | v 0.11 boot disk problem |
| Dave `geek' Gymer | WARNING (was Re: New afio release) |
