APMD-List:
Archives

  From: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@worldvisions.ca>
  To  : <apmd-list@worldvisions.ca>
  Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 21:40:41 -0400

Re: suspend rejections (was Re: apm proposed changes)

On Mon, Sep 28, 1998 at 08:26:29PM -0400, Craig Markwardt wrote:

> Actually, there are lots of reasons that you might want to reject a
> suspend at the user level:
> 
>    - if AC power is connected
>    - if CPU load is high
>    - if network load is high
>    - if modem is on line
> 
> I think we should let the user decide their own power management
> policy, if possible.  It shouldn't be built into the kernel.

Okay, I'm convinced.  I was thinking of stopping _user_ suspend requests, as
opposed to power saving requests.  Obviously there's a pretty big difference
there :)

>  > If we get too sneaky, we end up with laptops that refuse to shut down. 
>  > Mine does sometimes, and it's really annoying :(
> 
> Hmmm.  My laptop does that too.  I actually did some intense snooping
> around, and found that there is a bug in my APM BIOS which gets tweaked
> under certain circumstances.  I think having the ability to reject a
> suspend event might actually be good in those circumstances, if for
> example, you know that a suspend would crash the machine.  [ This depends
> on a machine-to-machine basis. ]

Have you thought about some way to avoid those "certain circumstances?"  If
we can just work around it without causing problems, it might be better for
everyone.

My laptop doesn't actually lock up on suspend -- but sometimes it refuses
outright, or it'll suspend and then wake up again.  Usually killing apmd
fixes that.  That used to happen with apmd 2.4 anyway, but I haven't
experienced it with 3.0.  And I never did much research to see what was
wrong, but I thought it might be disk-access related.

Avery