Re: suspend2 merge (was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: CFS and suspend2:hang in atomic copy)

[Josh Triplett]

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 12:15:50PM -0700, David Lang wrote:
>> with dynaticks now in the kernel it may even be possible to have the idle 
>> process decide that the next event is far enough away that it should 
>> suspend-to-ram until that point.
> 
> This would be ideal (and it's broadly what the OLPC guys are aiming for, 
> I think), but on most platforms you're looking at at least a second or 
> so to resume. As far as I know, we're still looking at ~60 ticks a 
> second at best for an average desktop, so that's not going to be a win.

As long as the system has a clear idea of how long it will take to resume, it
can schedule a wakeup for a reasonable amount of time before that.  Ideally, a
completely unused system might not need a tick for several seconds.  However,
I agree that it doesn't make sense to add such functionality to the kernel
until someone can show a system that can actually wait that long between
ticks.

- Josh Triplett
-
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/