[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure
On Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:41 am, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> The reason for adding this infrastructure is that power management in
> the idle loop needs to make a tradeoff between latency and power
> savings (deeper power save modes have a longer latency to running code
> again).

What if a processor was already in a sleep state when a call to
set_acceptable_latency() latency occurs? Should there be a callback so
they can be woken up? A callback would also allow ACPI to tell the
user "disabling C3 because of device <foo>" or somesuch, which might be

Also, should subsystems have the ability to set a lower bound on
latency? That would mean set_acceptable_latency() could fail,
indicating that the user should buy a better device or a system with
better realtime guarantees, which is also valuable info.

Comments aside, this is a nice interface, should help clarify things for
devices with response time limits.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-24 23:09    [W:0.091 / U:6.408 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site