On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 19:16:55 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> The thing is, unless there is some _really_ deep other reason to do > something like this, I still think it's total overdesign to push any > knowledge/choices like this into the scheduler. I'd rather keep things way > more independent, less tied to each other and to deep kernel subsystems. > > IOW, my personal opinion is that somethng like a suspend (blocker or not) > decision simply shouldn't be important enough to be tied into the > scheduler. Especially not if it could just be its own layer. > > That said, as far as I know, the Android people have mostly been looking > at the suspend angle from a single-core standpoint. And I'm not at all > convinced that they should hijack the existing "/sys/power/state" thing > which is what I think they do now. > > And those two things go together. The /sys/power/state thing is a global > suspend - which I don't think is appropriate for a opportunistic thing in > the first place, especially for multi-core. > This sounds right. If there is soo much need for a better solution, it will emerge. With merged suspend blockers or not. Just my 2 cents. > Linus Cheers, Flo -- 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
