Re: [PATCH 1/8] PM: Opportunistic suspend support.

[Arve Hjønnevåg]

2010/5/26 Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>
>> > I must be missing something.  In Arve's patch 1/8, if the system is in
>> > opportunistic suspend, and a wakeup event occurs but no suspend
>> > blockers get enabled by the handler, what causes the system to go back
>> > into suspend after the event is handled?  Isn't that a loop of some
>> > sort?
>> >
>>
>> Yes it is a loop. I think what you are missing is that it only loops
>> repeatedly if the driver that aborts suspend does not use a suspend
>> blocker.
>
> You mean "the driver that handles the wakeup event".  I was asking what
> happened if suspend succeeded and then a wakeup occurred.  But yes, if
> a suspend blocker is used then its release causes another suspend
> attempt, with no looping.
>
>> > And even if it isn't, so what?  What's wrong with looping behavior?
>>
>> It is a significant power drain.
>
> Not in the situation I was discussing.
>

If you meant it spend most of the time suspended, then I agree. It
only wastes power when a driver blocks suspend by returning an error
from its suspend hook and we are forced to loop doing no useful work.

-- 
Arve Hjønnevåg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/