Hi!
(ok, so I'm little late to the party).
Nonsense, if we want to push the system into suspend from the idle
state we can do that. It's just not implemented and we've never tried
to do it as it requires a non trivial amount of work, but I have done
it on an ARM two years ago as a prove
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:06:03 +0300
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
How would such stats be calculated? I presume at regular intervals you
check which applications are holding suspend blockers and
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Igor Stoppa igor.sto...@nokia.com 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
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:12:19 +0200
Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org 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
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl 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
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 16:12 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:40:02 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
Same for firefox, you can teach it to not render animated gifs and run
2010/6/2 Arve Hjønnevåg a...@android.com:
2010/6/2 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org:
(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
On Saturday 05 June 2010, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:12:19 +0200
Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org wrote:
If I have a simple shell script then I don't wanna jump through
hoops just to please
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 that the
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 platforms than
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:16:33 +0300
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
Do you realistically think that by hurting the _user_ you will make the
_developer_ write better code? No, really.
As an application
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.
I
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Saturday 05 June 2010, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org
wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:12:19 +0200
Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org wrote:
If I have a
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:30:40 +0300
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 16:12 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:40:02 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:16:33 +0300
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:44:24 +0300
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/2 Arve Hjønnevåg a...@android.com:
2010/6/2 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org:
(and please don't mention @#$@ up x86 ACPI again, Intel knows, they're
fixing it, get over it already).
I don't
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:44:24 +0300
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/2 Arve Hjønnevåg a...@android.com:
2010/6/2 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org:
(and please don't mention @#$@ up x86
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:06:03 +0300
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:30:40 +0300
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think the suspend blockers solve
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:26:27 +0300
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:26:27 +0300
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:24:40 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de 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
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 23:24:40 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de 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 22:56:45 +0300
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 20:16:33 +0300
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
New users will see it has low score; they
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 07:44:59PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:05:21PM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:24 +1000
Neil Brown ne...@suse.de wrote:
And this
2010/6/4 Dmitry Torokhov dmitry.torok...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 07:44:59PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:05:21PM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:24
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:28:01 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 16:12 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:40:02 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
Same for firefox, you can teach it to not render animated gifs and run
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 11:05:18 -0700
Brian Swetland swetl...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Neil Brown ne...@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:05:14 -0700
Arve Hjønnevåg a...@android.com wrote:
The user-space suspend daemon avoids losing wake-events by using
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Neil Brown ne...@suse.de wrote:
The current suspend-blocker proposal already involves userspace
changes (it's different than our existing wakelock interface), and
we're certainly not opposed to any/all userspace changes on principle,
but on the other hand
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Paul Mundt let...@linux-sh.org wrote:
On the other hand, while this isn't that difficult for the UP case it
does pose more problems for the SMP case. Presently the suspend paths
(suspend-to-RAM/hibernate/kexec jump) all deal with disabling and
enabling of
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 22:13 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:21:28 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
Do you switch your pc on and off manually? Sometimes? Really?
(if not, you are probably a kernel hacker *g*)
Yeah, when my Radeon GPU locks up the bus
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 23:58 -0700, Brian Swetland wrote:
I haven't poked around too much with how things work in SMP
environments -- are there per-cpu idle threads?
Yes, and we recently grew the infrastructure for asymmetric MP in the
processing capacity sense.
--
To unsubscribe from this
[mtg: ] This has been a pain point for the PM_QOS implementation. They
change the constrain back and forth at the transaction level of the i2c
driver. The pm_qos code really wasn't made to deal with such hot path use,
as each such change triggers a re-computation of what the aggregate qos
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
[mtg: ] This has been a pain point for the PM_QOS implementation.
They change the constrain back and forth at the transaction level of
the i2c driver. The pm_qos code really wasn't made to deal with such
hot path use, as each such change
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
[mtg: ] This has been a pain point for the PM_QOS implementation. They
change the constrain back and forth at the transaction level of the i2c
driver. The pm_qos code really wasn't made to deal with such hot path use,
as each such
If suspend is the thing we are used to via
/sys/power/state then the
race will persist forever except for the suspend blocker workaround,
True, because device wakeups are enabled
by device.driver.suspend() methods, which are
invoked towards the end of the activities
triggered by writing
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:40:02 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
Same for firefox, you can teach it to not render animated gifs and run
javascript for invisible tabs, and once the screen-saver kicks in,
nothing is visible (and with X telling apps their window is visible or
not it
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:24:31 -0500
James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
[mtg: ] This has been a pain point for the PM_QOS implementation. They
change the constrain back and forth at the transaction level of the i2c
driver.
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 11:43:06PM -0700, Brian Swetland wrote:
I guess it becomes an question of economics for you then. Does the cost of
whatever user-space changes are required exceed the value of using an
upstream
kernel? Both the cost and the value would be very hard to estimate in
...@nokia.com
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
[mtg: ] This has been a pain point for the PM_QOS implementation. They
change the constrain back and forth at the transaction level of the i2c
driver. The pm_qos code
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
[mtg: ] This has been a pain point for the PM_QOS implementation. They
change the constrain back and forth at the transaction level of the i2c
driver. The pm_qos code really wasn't made to
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 16:35 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
[mtg: ] This has been a pain point for the PM_QOS implementation. They
change the constrain back and forth at the transaction level
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 16:12 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:40:02 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
Same for firefox, you can teach it to not render animated gifs and run
javascript for invisible tabs, and once the screen-saver kicks in,
nothing is
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 10:21 -0400, ty...@mit.edu wrote:
And let's be blunt. If in the future the Android team (which I'm not
a member of) decides that they have invested more engineering time
than they can justify from a business perspective, the next time
someone starts whining on a blog,
; Linux PM; felipe.ba...@nokia.com
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org writes:
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
[mtg: ] This has been a pain point for the PM_QOS implementation.
They change the constrain back
Gleixner; Linux OMAP
Mailing List; Linux PM; felipe.ba...@nokia.com
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org writes:
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
[mtg: ] This has been a pain point for the PM_QOS implementation
Bottomley; Arve
Hjønnevåg; Neil Brown; ty...@mit.edu; LKML; Thomas Gleixner; Linux OMAP
Mailing List; Linux PM; felipe.ba...@nokia.com
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org writes:
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote
Bottomley; Thomas Gleixner; Linux OMAP Mailing List;
Linux PM; Alan Cox
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
Gross, Mark mark.gr...@intel.com writes:
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:khil...@deeprootsystems.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 7:43 AM
Yes, having a QoS parameter per-subsystem (or even per-device) is very
important for SoCs that have independently controlled powerdomains.
If all devices/subsystems in a particular powerdomain have QoS
parameters that permit, the power state of that powerdomain can be
lowered independently from
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/6/1 Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de:
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de
wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
For MSM hardware, it looks
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Neil Brown ne...@suse.de wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:50:01 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
I think you have acknowledged that there is a race with suspend - thanks.
Next step was can it be
2010/6/2 Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/6/1 Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de:
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de
wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010, James
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/6/2 Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
Deferring the the timers forever without stopping the clock can cause
problems. Our user space code has a lot of timeouts that will trigger
an error if an app
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:05:14 -0700
Arve Hjønnevåg a...@android.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Neil Brown ne...@suse.de wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:50:01 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
I think you have
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/6/1 Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de:
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/5/31 Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl:
On Monday 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/5/30 Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl:
...
I think it
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 18:06:14 +1000
Neil Brown ne...@suse.de wrote:
I cannot imagine why it would take multiple seconds to scan a keypad.
Can you explain that?
Do you mean while keys are held pressed? Maybe you don't get a wake-up event
on key-release? In that case your user-space daemon
2010/6/2 Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/6/1 Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de:
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/5/31 Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl:
On Monday 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/5/30 Rafael J.
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 10:29 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
If I understood you correctly then you can shutdown the CPU in idle
completelty already, but that's not enough due to:
1) crappy applications keeping the cpu away from idle
2) timers firing
Would solving those two issues
2010/6/2 Neil Brown ne...@suse.de:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:05:14 -0700
Arve Hjønnevåg a...@android.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Neil Brown ne...@suse.de wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:50:01 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Neil Brown
2010/6/2 Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/6/2 Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
Because suspend itself causes you to not be idle you cannot abort
suspend just because you are not idle anymore.
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/6/2 Neil Brown ne...@suse.de:
There would still need to be some sort of communication between the the
suspend daemon on any event daemon to ensure that the events had been
processed. This could be very light weight interaction. The point
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 01:54 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
No I want you to stop confusing low power idle modes with suspend.
I think it is you who is confused. For power management purposes suspend
is nothing more but a deep idle state.
(and please don't mention @#$@ up x86 ACPI again, Intel
2010/6/2 Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/6/2 Neil Brown ne...@suse.de:
There would still need to be some sort of communication between the the
suspend daemon on any event daemon to ensure that the events had been
processed. This could be
2010/6/2 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org:
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 01:54 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
No I want you to stop confusing low power idle modes with suspend.
I think it is you who is confused. For power management purposes suspend
is nothing more but a deep idle state.
No, idle
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 03:00 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/6/2 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org:
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 01:54 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
No I want you to stop confusing low power idle modes with suspend.
I think it is you who is confused. For power management
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 11:10:51 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 10:29 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
If I understood you correctly then you can shutdown the CPU in idle
completelty already, but that's not enough due to:
1) crappy applications
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 21:41 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/6/1 James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de:
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 18:10 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:36 PM, James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de
wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 00:24 +0200, Rafael J.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Neil Brown ne...@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:05:14 -0700
Arve Hjønnevåg a...@android.com wrote:
The user-space suspend daemon avoids losing wake-events by using
fcntl(F_OWNER) to ensure it gets a signal whenever any important wake-event
is ready to
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:24 +1000
Neil Brown ne...@suse.de wrote:
And this decision (to block suspend) really needs to be made in the driver,
not in userspace?
Well, it fits. The requirement is a direct consequence of the intimate
knowledge the driver has about the driven devices.
Or if you
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:05:11 -0500
James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 21:41 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
No, they have to be two separate constraints, otherwise a constraint
to block suspend would override a constraint to block a low power idle
mode or the
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:21:28 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 03:00 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/6/2 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org:
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 01:54 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
No I want you to stop confusing low power idle
On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:50:01 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
I think you have acknowledged that there is a race with suspend - thanks.
Next step was can it be closed.
You
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 21:47 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:05:11 -0500
James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 21:41 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
No, they have to be two separate constraints, otherwise a constraint
to block suspend
On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
...
So yes, there are different use cases and we should support all of them,
both I shut the lid and my laptop really stays asleep and I never miss a
TXT because my
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:41:14 +0200
Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
- Would this fix the bug??
- and address the issues that suspend-blockers was created to address?
- or are the requirements on user-space too onerous?
In theory wakeup
On Thursday 03 June 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 22:41:14 +0200
Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Wednesday 02 June 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
- Would this fix the bug??
- and address the issues that suspend-blockers was created to address?
- or are the
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:41 PM, James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 21:47 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:05:11 -0500
James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 21:41 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
No, they have
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:27 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:41 PM, James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de
wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 21:47 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:05:11 -0500
James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de wrote:
On Tue,
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:41:11 -0500
James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 21:47 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:05:11 -0500
James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 21:41 -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
No,
...@nokia.com
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:41:11 -0500
James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 21:47 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:05:11 -0500
James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:05:21 +0200
Florian Mickler flor...@mickler.org wrote:
Could someone perhaps make a recap on what are the problems with the
API? I have no clear eye (experience?) for that (or so it seems).
Good interface design is an acquired taste. And it isn't always easy to
explain
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:05:21PM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:24 +1000
Neil Brown ne...@suse.de wrote:
And this decision (to block suspend) really needs to be made in the driver,
not in userspace?
Well, it fits. The requirement is a direct consequence of the
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 16:32:44 -0700
Dmitry Torokhov dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:05:21PM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:24 +1000
Neil Brown ne...@suse.de wrote:
And this decision (to block suspend) really needs to be made in the
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:05:21PM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:24 +1000
Neil Brown ne...@suse.de wrote:
And this decision (to block suspend) really needs to be made in the driver,
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 19:44:59 -0700
Arve Hjønnevåg a...@android.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:05:21PM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 21:02:24 +1000
Neil Brown ne...@suse.de wrote:
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 06:06:43PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
And to answer Thomas's question: The whole reason for having in-kernel
suspend blockers is so that userspace can tell the system to suspend
without losing wakeup events.
Suppose a
Hi,
ext Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
It sounded like you were suggesting that initiating suspend from idle
would somehow avoid the race condition with wakeup events. All I'm
saying is that you would need to block suspend in all the same places.
If you don't care about ignoring wakeup events, then
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
I think you have acknowledged that there is a race with suspend - thanks.
Next step was can it be closed.
You seem to suggest that it can, but you describe it as a work around
rather than a bug fix...
Do you agree that the race is a bug, and therefore
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
For MSM hardware, it looks possible to unify the S and C states by doing
suspend to ram from idle but I'm not sure how much
On Mon, 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/5/31 Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl:
On Monday 31 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
2010/5/30 Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl:
...
I think it makes more sense to block suspend while wakeup events are
pending than blocking it everywhere
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 04:21:09PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
You're the one mentioning x86, not me. I already explained that some
MSM hardware (the G1 for example) has lower power consumption in S3
(which I'm using as an ACPI shorthand for suspend to ram) than any
suspend from idle C
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
With wakeup events the problem isn't so bad. Wakeup events are always
noticed, and if the system is designed properly they will either abort
a suspend-in-progress or else cause the system to resume as soon as the
suspend is complete. (Linux is not
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 14:51 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 04:21:09PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
You're the one mentioning x86, not me. I already explained that some
MSM hardware (the G1 for example) has lower power consumption in S3
(which I'm using as an ACPI
--- On Tue, 6/1/10, James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de wrote:
As long as you can set a wakeup timer, an S state is just a C state with
side effects.
I've seen similar statements on this endless
thread before; they're not quite true...
The significant one is that entering an
S
On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki r...@sisk.pl wrote:
On Monday 31 May 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:40:29 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki
On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
As I said before, we generally can't prevent such things from happening,
because even if we handle the particular race described above, it still is
possible that the event will be lost if it arrives just a
On Tuesday 01 June 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
With wakeup events the problem isn't so bad. Wakeup events are always
noticed, and if the system is designed properly they will either abort
a suspend-in-progress or else cause the system to resume as
On Tuesday 01 June 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 14:51 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 04:21:09PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
You're the one mentioning x86, not me. I already explained that some
MSM hardware (the G1 for example) has lower
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 00:24 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday 01 June 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 14:51 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 04:21:09PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
You're the one mentioning x86, not me. I already
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
Alan Stern st...@rowland.harvard.edu wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, Neil Brown wrote:
With wakeup events the problem isn't so bad. Wakeup events are always
noticed, and if the system is designed properly they will either abort
a suspend-in-progress
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 3:36 PM, James Bottomley james.bottom...@suse.de wrote:
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 00:24 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday 01 June 2010, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 14:51 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 04:21:09PM -0500,
1 - 100 of 442 matches
Mail list logo
