From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933147Ab0E0WO0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 27 May 2010 18:14:26 -0400
Received: from earthlight.etchedpixels.co.uk ([81.2.110.250]:39362 "EHLO
	www.etchedpixels.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757300Ab0E0WOZ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 27 May 2010 18:14:25 -0400
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 23:20:43 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Arve =?ISO-8859-14?B?SGr4bm5lduVn?= <arve@android.com>,
       Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org>,
       Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com>,
       Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Paul@smtp1.linux-foundation.org,
       felipe.balbi@nokia.com,
       Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
       Linux PM <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
Message-ID: <20100527232043.784d5c72@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <201005272355.13222.rjw@sisk.pl>
References: <20100527140655.GA28048@srcf.ucam.org>
	<20100527182058.GL3543@srcf.ucam.org>
	<20100527200950.44305cef@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
	<201005272355.13222.rjw@sisk.pl>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:55:13 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:

> On Thursday 27 May 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > If one works so does the other.
> > > 
> > > Not at all. The entire point of opportunistic suspend is that I don't 
> > > care is currently in TASK_RUNNABLE or has a timer that's due to expire 
> > > in 100msec - based on policy (through not having any held suspend 
> > > blockers), I'll go to sleep. That's easily possible on PCs.
> > 
> > Yes I appreciate what suspend blockers are trying to do. Now how does
> > that connect with my first sentence ?
> 
> I guess what Matthew wanted to say was that you couldn't use ACPI S3 as
> a very deep CPU idle state, because of the way wakeup sources are set up
> for it, while you could use it for aggressive power management with suspend
> blockers as proposed by Arve.

Which is a nonsense. Because the entire Gnome desktop and KDE, and
OpenOffice and Firefox and friends would need fitting out with
suspend blockers.

x86 hardware is moving to fix these problems (at least on handheld
devices initially). Look up the C6 power idle, and S0i1 and S0i3
standby states. I reckon the laptop folks can probably get the hardware
fixed well before anyone can convert the entire PC desktop to include
blockers.

Alan