From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Uli Luckas Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] PM: Add option to disable /sys/power/state interface Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 02:58:10 +0100 Message-ID: <200902090258.10713.u.luckas@road.de> References: <1233802226-23386-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <20090208210658.GF6369@elf.ucw.cz> <200902090041.36163.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200902090041.36163.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: Brian Swetland , ncunningham@crca.org.au List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Monday 09 February 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday 08 February 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > Being in suspend, where periodic user and kernel timers aren't running, > > > and random userspace threads aren't possibly spinning, rather than just > > > being in idle in the lowest power possible state, represent a pretty > > > significant power savings. > > > > If kernel timers fire too often, fix them. If user land spins, fix it, > > or SIGSTOP. > > > > And yes, autosleep is useful. That's why I done those "sleepy linux" > > patches. > > I agree, it is. Still, I don't think the wakelocks in the proposed form > are the right way to implement it. > What do you think is the right approach then? Uli