On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> Yes, we can keep all our user space suspend blockers and thaw the
> frozen cgroup when any suspend blocker is held, but this would
> eliminate any power advantage that freezing a cgroup has over using
> suspend to freeze all processes. Without annotating
2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
>> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
>> >> > B1;2005;0cOn Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >> Cross app calls do not go through a central process.
2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
>> >> > Well, that's simply an application bug which sucks battery with or
>> >> > without suspend blockers. So it's unrelated to the freezing of
>> >> > untrusted apps while a trusted app still wor
2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
>> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >> >> > That download might take a minute or two, but that's not an
>> >> >> > justification for the crapplication to run unconfined and prevent
>>
2010/6/5 Rafael J. Wysocki :
> On Sunday 06 June 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> 2010/6/5 Rafael J. Wysocki :
>> > On Saturday 05 June 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >> 2010/6/4 Matt Helsley :
>> >> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 05:39:17PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:0
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:26:36 -0700
> Brian Swetland wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm continually surprised by answers like this. We run on hardware
>> that power gates very aggressively and draws in the neighborhood of
>> 1-2mA at the battery when in th
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
> >> > B1;2005;0cOn Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> Cross app calls do not go through a central process.
> >
> > It's not about a central
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
> >> > Well, that's simply an application bug which sucks battery with or
> >> > without suspend blockers. So it's unrelated to the freezing of
> >> > untrusted apps while a trusted app still works in the background
> >> > befor
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >> > That download might take a minute or two, but that's not an
> >> >> > justification for the crapplication to run unconfined and prevent
> >> >> > lower power states.
> >> >
2010/6/5 Arjan van de Ven :
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:39:44 -0700
> Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>
>> >
>> > For example if the Adobe Flash player puts a timer every 10
>> > milliseconds (yes it does that), and you give it a 3.99 seconds
>> > range, it will fire its timers every 4 seconds unless other
2010/6/5 Rafael J. Wysocki :
> On Saturday 05 June 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
>> > B1;2005;0cOn Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >
>> >> 2010/6/4 Thomas Gleixner :
>> >> > Arve,
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:26:36 -0700
> Brian Swetland wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm continually surprised by answers like this. We run on hardware
> > that power gates very aggressively and draws in the neighborhood of
> > 1-2mA at the battery when in the lowe
On Sunday 06 June 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
> >> > B1;2005;0cOn Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
...
> > So taking your example:
> >
> > Event happens and gets delivered to the framewo
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:39:44 -0700
Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >
> > For example if the Adobe Flash player puts a timer every 10
> > milliseconds (yes it does that), and you give it a 3.99 seconds
> > range, it will fire its timers every 4 seconds unless other
> > activity happens independently, a
2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
>> > B1;2005;0cOn Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >> > Why is it a BUG in the trusted app, when I initiate a download and put
>> >> > the phone down ?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> It is not, but we
On Sunday 06 June 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/6/5 Rafael J. Wysocki :
> > On Saturday 05 June 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> 2010/6/4 Matt Helsley :
> >> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 05:39:17PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Gleixner
> >> >> wrot
On Sunday 06 June 2010, Brian Swetland wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >>
> >> We clearly have different standards for what we consider good. We
> >> measure time suspended in minutes or hours, not seconds, and waking up
> >> every second or two causes a noticeab
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 15:26:36 -0700
Brian Swetland wrote:
>
> I'm continually surprised by answers like this. We run on hardware
> that power gates very aggressively and draws in the neighborhood of
> 1-2mA at the battery when in the lowest state (3-5mA while the radio
> is connected to the netwo
On Saturday 05 June 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
> > B1;2005;0cOn Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >
> >> 2010/6/4 Thomas Gleixner :
> >> > Arve,
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Gleixne
2010/6/5 Arjan van de Ven :
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 14:26:14 -0700
> Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Arjan van de Ven
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:54:13 +0200
>> > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 17:10 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >> > >
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>
>> We clearly have different standards for what we consider good. We
>> measure time suspended in minutes or hours, not seconds, and waking up
>> every second or two causes a noticeable decrease in battery life on
>> the hardware we have t
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 14:26:14 -0700
Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Arjan van de Ven
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:54:13 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 17:10 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> > > Trusted processes are assumed to be san
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
> > B1;2005;0cOn Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> > Why is it a BUG in the trusted app, when I initiate a download and put
> >> > the phone down ?
> >> >
> >>
> >> It is not, but we have had bugs where a trusted app d
2010/6/5 Rafael J. Wysocki :
> On Saturday 05 June 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> 2010/6/4 Matt Helsley :
>> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 05:39:17PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Gleixner
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 22:56:45 +0300
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Florian Mickler wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:16:33 +0300
> > Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> New users will see it has low score; they will not install it. That's
> >> a network effect.
> >>
> >> Havin
2010/6/5 Thomas Gleixner :
> B1;2005;0cOn Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>
>> 2010/6/4 Thomas Gleixner :
>> > Arve,
>> >
>> > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Gleixner
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wro
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:24:40 +0200 (CEST)
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > Stop that advertising campaing already.
>
> Stop advertising that there is no problem.
>
> >
> > No thanks,
> >
> > tglx
>
> Cheers,
> Flo
>
> (Sorry, crossfire. Caused
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:24:40 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Stop that advertising campaing already.
Stop advertising that there is no problem.
>
> No thanks,
>
> tglx
Cheers,
Flo
(Sorry, crossfire. Caused
by you answering in the wrong subthread. I know that you are
engineering
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:54:13 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 17:10 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> > > Trusted processes are assumed to be sane and idle when there is
>> > > nothing for them to do, allowing the mac
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:26:27 +0300
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> > Supposing there's a perfect usage of suspend blockers from user-space
> > on current x86 platforms (in theory Android would have that), is the
> > benefit that big to consider this a str
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:26:27 +0300
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Supposing there's a perfect usage of suspend blockers from user-space
> on current x86 platforms (in theory Android would have that), is the
> benefit that big to consider this a strong argument in favor of
> suspend blockers? Considerin
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:06:03 +0300
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Florian Mickler wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:30:40 +0300
> > Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> I don't think the suspend blockers solve much. A bad application will
> >> behave bad on any system. Suppose
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 19:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds 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 indepen
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:44:24 +0300
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> 2010/6/2 Arve Hjønnevåg :
>> > 2010/6/2 Peter Zijlstra :
>> >> (and please don't mention @#$@ up x86 ACPI again, Intel knows, they're
>> >> fixing it, get over it already).
>
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:30:40 +0300
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> I don't think the suspend blockers solve much. A bad application will
>> behave bad on any system. Suppose somebody decides to port Firefox to
>> Android, and forgets to listen
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:44:24 +0300
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> 2010/6/2 Arve Hjønnevåg :
> > 2010/6/2 Peter Zijlstra :
> >> (and please don't mention @#$@ up x86 ACPI again, Intel knows, they're
> >> fixing it, get over it already).
> >>
> >
> > I don't think it is realistic to drop support for all
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:16:33 +0300
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> New users will see it has low score; they will not install it. That's
>> a network effect.
>>
>> Having users is the quintessential reason people write code.
>
> That is nice.
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:30:40 +0300
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 16:12 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> >> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:40:02 +0200
> >> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>
> >> > Fix the friggin apps, don't kludge with
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday 05 June 2010, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Florian Mickler
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:12:19 +0200
>> > Florian Mickler wrote:
>> >> If I have a simple shell script then I don't wan
On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 21:39 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> There is a number of kernel users that depend on Android user space
> (phone vendors using Android on their hardware, but providing their own
> drivers), so I don't think we really can identify Android with Google in that
> respect.
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:16:33 +0300
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Do you realistically think that by hurting the _user_ you will make the
> > _developer_ write better code? No, really.
>
> As an application writer, if my users complain th
On Saturday 05 June 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 21:04 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > I have seen recent proposals that don't require changing the whole
> > > user-space. That might actually be used by other players.
> >
> > Sure, an approach benefitting more pla
On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 21:04 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > I have seen recent proposals that don't require changing the whole
> > user-space. That might actually be used by other players.
>
> Sure, an approach benefitting more platforms than just Android would be
> better,
> but saying th
On Saturday 05 June 2010, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Florian Mickler wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:12:19 +0200
> > Florian Mickler wrote:
> >> If I have a simple shell script then I don't wanna jump through
> >> hoops just to please your fragile kernel.
> >
>
How do I actually get this to work? Built a kernel with it for my N810, but
there's no ttyO* (I'm using devtmpfs)...
--
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/majordo
On Saturday 05 June 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/6/4 Matt Helsley :
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 05:39:17PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > With the cgroup
2010/6/2 Arve Hjønnevåg :
> 2010/6/2 Peter Zijlstra :
>> (and please don't mention @#$@ up x86 ACPI again, Intel knows, they're
>> fixing it, get over it already).
>>
>
> I don't think it is realistic to drop support for all existing hardware.
We are talking about mainline here, there's no support
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 16:12 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:40:02 +0200
>> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> > Same for firefox, you can teach it to not render animated gifs and run
>> > javascript for invisible tabs, and o
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Do you realistically think that by hurting the _user_ you will make the
> _developer_ write better code? No, really.
As an application writer, if my users complain that their battery is
being drained (as it happened), they stop using it
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Florian Mickler wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:12:19 +0200
> Florian Mickler wrote:
>> If I have a simple shell script then I don't wanna jump through
>> hoops just to please your fragile kernel.
>
> Also why should that code on one device kill my uptime and on
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> ext Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> I think this information can be obtained dynamically while the
>> application is running,
>
> yes, that was the idea
>
>> and perhaps the limits can be stored. It would
>> be pretty difficult for the applicatio
B1;2005;0cOn Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> 2010/6/4 Thomas Gleixner :
> > Arve,
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> >> I kind of agree here, so I'd lik
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:54:13 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 17:10 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> > > Trusted processes are assumed to be sane and idle when there is
> > > nothing for them to do, allowing the machine to go into deep idle
> > > states.
> > >
> >
> > Neither th
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 17:10 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> > Trusted processes are assumed to be sane and idle when there is nothing
> > for them to do, allowing the machine to go into deep idle states.
> >
>
> Neither the kernel nor our trusted user-space code currently meets
> this criteria.
T
54 matches
Mail list logo
