Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:42:00 +0200
From:      Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org>
To:        Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org>, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>, Dan Lukes <dan@obluda.cz>, ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>
Subject:   Re: disabling sleep when shutting down
Message-ID:  <56064C48.8020100@selasky.org>
In-Reply-To: <560648A7.4030708@freebsd.org>
References:  <55FA3848.7090802@freebsd.org> <55FB233D.2080000@FreeBSD.org> <55FB48E3.20401@freebsd.org> <55FC4F13.3090603@FreeBSD.org> <55FC57F9.3050702@yahoo.com> <55FE5D54.1030806@freebsd.org> <5601A863.5070406@FreeBSD.org> <560262BF.7090107@freebsd.org> <5602DE8D.3020102@FreeBSD.org> <560648A7.4030708@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,

On 09/26/15 09:26, Colin Percival wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think there is consensus for:
> * Using a sysctl (simpler than a device node),

Presumably a read/write tunable sysctl, RWTUN?

> * Setting this sysctl on all architectures,
> * Calling the sysctl kern.suspend_blocked,
> * Consulting the sysctl from the ACPI code (for now) and possibly from
> other platform-specific forms of sleeping (in the indefinite future).
>
> Points without consensus:
> * jkim thinks we should prevent suspend when we're dropping to single-user
> mode; I'm not sure I see the point, but I don't think there's any harm in
> doing that too.
> * Ian Smith would like to have suspend blocked for the last 5 minutes before
> shutdown(8) signals init to shut the system down.  I don't think anyone else
> has expressed a desire for this, and some people have raised concerns about
> blocking suspend for too long in case a system is running out of battery; so
> I'm inclined to leave this out at this point.  (It would be easy enough to
> add the sysctl-frobbing to shutdown(8) if desired later.)
>
> With the above in mind, I've written (but not yet actually compiled or tested,
> so beware of typos) a patch which I think makes sense.  If nobody is violently
> opposed to this I'll make sure I got the details right and then commit this in
> a few days.

+1

I think this is a good idea. I've seen this issue myself with 
non-FreeBSD OS'es.

--HPS



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56064C48.8020100>