lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [linux-usb-devel] [4/4] 2.6.23-rc3: known regressions


On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > So it might be much better if we instead re-introduced that kind of "DMA
> > latency requirement", and letting different subsystems react to that as
> > they may.
>
> wait.... we HAVE that infrastructure .. see kernel/latency.c ...

Heh. Just shows how wellknown that interface is - it seems like it's only
used by the ipw2100 driver and "pcm_native".

But yes, that looks like the right thing.

> and the C-state code will honor it. CPUFREQ doesn't honor it yet but
> that's easy to add.. (this assumes the ACPI BIOS informs us correctly
> about the cpu behavior, but that's the best we can do obviously unless
> you want a table inside the kernel keyed off vendor/model/stepping)

Do we actually have the latency information for these things? Especially
since I assume a number of people use the specialized direct-hw-access
cpufreq drivers..

I realize that we *have* "transition_latency" at the cpufreq layer, and it
is supposed to be in ns, but I wonder how likely it is to bear any
relationship to reality, considering that I don't think it's really used
for anything.. (yeah, it affects the heuristics, but I don't think it has
any _hard_ meaning, so I'd worry that it's not necessarily something that
people have tried to make accurate).

But I dunno.

Linus
-
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: 2007-08-21 08:29    [W:0.094 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site