On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> > No, it's not. Forced suspend may be in response to hitting a key, but it
>
> You are the only person here talking about 'forced' suspends. The rest of
> us are talking about idling down and ensuring we are always in a state we
> un-idle correctly.
>
> > may also be in response to a 30 minute timeout expiring. If I get a WoL
> > packet in the 0.5 of a second between userspace deciding to suspend and
> > actually doing so, the system shouldn't suspend.
>
> I don't think that argument holds water in the form you have it
>
> What about 5 nanoseconds before you suspend. Now you can't do that (laws
> of physics and stuff).
>
> So your position would seem to be "we have a race but can debate how big
> is permissible"
>
> The usual model is
>
> "At no point should we be in a position when entering a suspend style
> deep sleep where we neither abort the suspend, nor commit to a
> suspend/resume sequence if the events we care about occur"
>
> and that is why the hardware model is
>
> Set wake flags
> Check if idle
> If idle
> Suspend
> else
> Clear wake flags
> Unwind
>
> and the wake flags guarantee that an event at any point after the wake
> flags are set until they are cleared will cause a suspend to be resumed,
> possibly immediately after the suspend.
And if a platform can not guarantee the wakeup or the lossless
transition of states then you can not solve this by throwing blockers
or whatever into the code.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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
