Re: [update] Re: [PATCH] PM: Make it possible to avoid wakeupevents from being lost
From: mark gross
Date: Wed Jun 30 2010 - 09:47:37 EST
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:10:38AM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> Hi Rafael!
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:01:53 +0200
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Monday, June 28, 2010, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> > Subject: PM: Make it possible to avoid wakeup events from being lost
> I have nothing substantial to add, but just wanted to let you know that
> this approach seems like a good alternative to me. As far as I can see
> the userspace suspend-blocker interface could be expressed in terms of
> this kernel facility which brings android closer to mainline.
> The only thing I haven't thought through yet is the 'maintain a discrete
> set of constraints' vs 'just increment a number' thing. Especially if
> what we loose in information through that (in comparison to 'the other
> approach') is made up for by easier in-kernel-API. I _think_ if there
> is any need for in-kernel-accounting (i don't know that) it could be
> retro-fitted by using the trace event infrastructure?
Adding ftracing hooks and some less invasive partial state or trace
support to this and pm_qos is likely the next order of business.
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/