[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure
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

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: 2006-08-25 06:59    [W:0.059 / U:6.596 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site