On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 02:41 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> 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.


Thanks for your constructive feedback.

Brian
--
unsubscribe notice
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/