![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Jesse Barnes wrote: > >> 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? > > > there's nothing sane that can be done in that case; any wake up already > will cause the unwanted latency! > A premature wakeup is only making it happen *now*, but now is as > inconvenient a time as any... > (in fact it may be a worst case time scenario, say, an audio interrupt...) Surely you would call set_acceptable_latency() *before* running such operation that requires the given latency? And that set_acceptable_latency would block the caller until all CPUs are set to wake within this latency. That would be the API semantics I would expect, anyway. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-08-25 06:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||