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

[Brian Swetland]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> >I should have asked this earlier... ÂWhat exactly are the apps'
>> >compatibility constraints? ÂSource-level APIs? ÂByte-code class-library
>> >invocations? ÂC/C++ dynamic linking? ÂC/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. ÂChanging the basic kernel<->userspace interface (within
>
> Strange. Arve claimed that open/close is too slow, and few
> microseconds faster ioctl is needed, and now we learn it actually uses
> RPC.

For the high level Java API, yes.  For lower level userspace code,
like the code that processes keypresses, the kernel interface is used
directly.  I think an open/close per keypress would be a bit
excessive, for example.  In any case, that ignores the fact that it's
useful to have statistics, which are tricky to maintain meaningfully
if you destroy the handle after use every time (by closing the fd).

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  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/