[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:0.023 / U:66.092 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site