[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: TLP package vs. pm-utils

Hi Martin,

thanks for your helpful insights.

>> see [3] –, neither is pm-suspend called by systemd's sleep.target.
> Not by systemd as pid 1, but if you run with upstart or sysvinit,
> systemd-shim will use pm-utils if it is installed, so that suspend
> quirks still work.
My experiments showed that i need packages acpid and acpi-support to
call pm-suspend when the ThinkPad hotkey Fn+F4 is pressed.

> That seems a bit harsh and unnecessary -- you said that pm-utils was
> inert, not breaking TLP or systemd in any way? As it's still useful on
> non-systemd systems, I don't see a technical reason for the conflict.
OK, agreed.

The initial goal was to mask the the pm-powersave hooks that apply the
same powersave settings as TLP because it may lead to funny races if two
tools are at work. Historically this is needed in Ubuntu and Debian <
Jessie to coexist with the mandatory pm-utils.

So i still mask them in the current package just in case someone else
calls pm-powersave. A "conflicts" would have spared me the somewhat ugly
postinst/postrm code.

I now modified the package to install tlp's pm-suspend hook, so it works
fine even in a sysvinit-core setup.

> and the kernel or another component does a good enough power management
> by itself.
I don't see any breaking news on the kernel front. Drivers get
considerably better in terms of powersave, but runtime pm and sata alpm
for example are still off by default.

In the current state of Jessie there is no power saving in the base
desktop/laptop install. This would be a regression to Wheezy. Works as

Regards, Thomas

Thomas Koch – linrunner@gmx.net

Reply to: