> * Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> [100513 07:11]:
> > On Wed, 12 May 2010, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Some general comments on the suspend blockers/wakelock/opportunistic
> > > suspend v6 patch series, posted here:
> > >
> > >
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2010-April/025146.html
> > >
> > > The comments below are somewhat telegraphic in the interests of
> > > readability - more specific comments to follow in later E-mails. I am
> > > indebted to those of us who discussed these issues at LPC last year and
> > > ELC this year for several stimulating discussions.
> > >
> > > There are several general problems with the design of opportunistic
> > > suspend and suspend-blocks.
> > >
> > > 1. The opportunistic suspend code bypasses existing Linux kernel code,
> > > such as timers and the scheduler, that indicates when code
> > > needs to run, and when the system is idle.
> >
> > Whoa! That's not my understanding at all.
> >
> > As I see it, opportunistic suspend doesn't bypass any code that isn't
> > already bypassed by the existing suspend code. Users can do
> >
> > echo mem >/sys/power/state
> >
> > whenever they want, without regard to kernel timers and the scheduler
> > (other than the fact that the user's thread must be running in order to
> > carry out the write, of course).
>
> The difference between echo mem > /sys/power/state and suspend blocks
> is that with suspend blocks the system keeps running.
