On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 15:35 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 04:28:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 15:06 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > one way which indicates to the scheduler that tasks in TASK_RUNNING > > > should be scheduled, and when the session is idle we set the flag the > > > other way and all processes in that cgroup get shifted to > > > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE or something. > > > > What's wrong with simply making the phone beep loudly and displaying: > > bouncing cows is preventing your phone from sleeping! > > Well, primarily that it's possible to design an implementation where it > *doesn't* prevent your phone froms sleeping, but also because a given > application may justifiably be preventing your phone from sleeping for a > short while. What threshold do you use to determine the difference?
Whatever you want, why would the kernel care? You can create a whole resource management layer in userspace, with different privilidge/trust levels. Trusted apps may wake more than untrusted apps. Who cares. The thing is, you can easily detect what keeps your cpu from idling. What you do about it a pure userspace solution. You can use the QoS stuff to give hints, like don't wake me more than 5 times a minute, if with those hints an app still doesn't meet whatever criteria are suitable for the current mode, yell at it. Or adjust its QoS parameters for it. Heck, for all I care, simply SIGKILL the thing and report it once the user starts looking at his screen again. -- 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
