Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

From: Arve Hjønnevåg
Date: Tue Aug 03 2010 - 18:47:44 EST

2010/8/2 <david@xxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote:
>> 2010/8/2  <david@xxxxxxx>:
>>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Arve Hj?nnev?g wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 5:08 PM,  <david@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>>> you are close, but I think what I'm proposing is actually simpler
>>>>> (assuming
>>>>> that the scheduler can be configured to generate the appropriate stats)
>>>>> my thought was not to move applications between cgroups as they
>>>>> aquire/release the suspend-block lock, bur rather to say that any
>>>>> application that you would trust to get the suspend-block lock should
>>>>> be
>>>>> in
>>>>> cgroup A while all other applications are in cgroup B
>>>>> when you are deciding if the system shoudl go to sleep because it is
>>>>> idle,
>>>>> ignore the activity of all applications in cgroup B
>>>>> if cgroup A applications are busy, the system is not idle and should
>>>>> not
>>>>> suspend.
>>>> Triggering suspend from idle has been suggested before. However, idle
>>>> is not a signal that it is safe to suspend since timers stop in
>>>> suspend (or the code could temporarily be waiting on a non-wakeup
>>>> interrupt). If you add suspend blockers or wakelocks to prevent
>>>> suspend while events you care about are pending, then it does not make
>>>> a lot of sense to prevent suspend just because the cpu is not idle.
>>> isn't this a matter of making the suspend decision look at what timers
>>> have
>>> been set to expire in the near future and/or tweaking how long the system
>>> needs to be idle before going to sleep?
>> You are describing low power idle modes, not suspend. Most timers stop
>> in suspend, so a timer set 10 seconds from now when entering suspend
>> will go off 10 seconds after resume so it should have no impact on how
>> long you decide to stay in suspend.
> so what is the fundamental difference between deciding to go into low-power
> idle modes to wake up back up on a given point in the future and deciding
> that you are going to be idle for so long that you may as well suspend until
> there is user input?

Low power idle modes are supposed to be transparent. Suspend stops the
monotonic clock, ignores ready threads and switches over to a separate
set of wakeup events/interrupts. We don't suspend until there is user
input, we suspend until there is a wakeup event (user-input, incoming
network data/phone-calls, alarms etc..).

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
Please read the FAQ at