> On Thursday, August 05, 2010,
david@lang.hm wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, August 05, 2010,
david@lang.hm wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My proposal would never freeze a subset of processes.
>>>>
>>>> what my proposal:
>>>>
>>>> only consider the activity of a subset of processes when deciding if we
>>>> should suspend or not. If the decision is to suspend, freeze everything.
>>>
>>> That alone doesn't allow you to handle the race Matthew was referring to
>>> (ie. wakeup event happening right after you've decided to suspend).
>>>
>>> A mechanism of making a decision alone is not sufficient, you also need a
>>> mechanism to avoid races between wakeup events and suspend process.
>>>
>>
>> I thought you just posted that there was a new feature that would be able
>> to abort the suspend and so that race was closed.
>
> Yes, you can use that for this purpose, but then you'd need a user space
> power manager who would decide whether or not to suspend. Then, however,
> the problem boils down to setting up appropriate communication between the
> power manager and the other applications in user space (ie. the kernel
> doesn't need to be involved in that at all).