Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take two

From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Thu Aug 05 2010 - 10:43:29 EST

On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 06:18:42AM -0700, david@xxxxxxx wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >Continuing to rush in where angels fear to tread...
> here here :-)
> >o "PM-driving application" are applications that are permitted
> > to acquire suspend blockers on Android. Verion 8 of the
> > suspend-blocker patch seems to use group permissions to determine
> > which applications are classified as power aware. More generally,
> > PM-driving applications seem to be those that have permission
> > to exert some control over the system's sleep state.
> >
> > Note that an application might be power-oblivious on one Android
> > device and PM-driving on another, depending on whether the user
> > allows that application to acquire suspend blockers. The
> > classification might even change over time. For example, a
> > user might give an application PM-driving status initially,
> > but change his or her mind after some experience with that
> > application.
> One thing that I think it's important to document here is
> theinformation that Brian provided in response to your question
> about how many (or actually how few) applications fall into this
> catefory

Agreed!!! I have added this, and it will appear in the next version.

Thanx, Paul

> David Lang
> Quote:
> >I should have asked this earlier... What exactly are the apps'
> >compatibility constraints? Source-level APIs? Byte-code class-library
> >invocations? C/C++ dynamic linking? C/C++ static linking (in other
> >words, syscall)?
> For Java/Dalvik apps, the wakelock API is pertty high level -- it
> talks to a service via RPC (Binder) that actually interacts with the
> kernel. Changing the basic kernel<->userspace interface (within
> reason) is not unthinkable. For example, Arve's suspend_blocker patch
> provides a device interface rather than the proc interface the older
> wakelock patches use. We'd have to make some userspace changes to
> support that but they're pretty low level and minor.
> In the current model, only a few processes need to specifically
> interact with the kernel (the power management service in the
> system_server, possibly the media_server and the radio interface
> glue). A model where every process needs to have a bunch of
> instrumentation is not very desirable from our point of view. We
> definitely do need reasonable statistics in order to enable debugging
> and to enable reporting to endusers (through the Battery Usage UI)
> what's keeping the device awake.
> Brian
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