lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/12] irq: implement IRQ expecting
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 06/18/2010 08:26 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:47:19 +0200
> > Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hmmm... the thing is that there will be many cases which won't fit
> >> irq_expect() model (why irq_watch() exists in the first place) and for
> >> the time being libata is the only one providing that data. Would the
> >> data still be useful to determine which c-state to use?
> >
> > yes absolutely. One of the hard cases right now that the C state code
> > has is that it needs to predict the future. While it has a ton of
> > heuristics, including some is there IO oustanding" ones, libata is a
> > really good case: libata will know generally that within one seek time
> > (5 msec on rotating rust, much less on floating electrons) there'll be
> > an interrupt (give or take, but this is what we can do heuristics for
> > on a per irq level).
> > So it's a good suggestion of what the future will be like, MUCH better
> > than any hint we have right now... all we have right now is some
> > history, and when the next timer is....
>
> Cool, good to know. It shouldn't be difficult to at all to add. Once
> the whole thing gets generally agreed on, I'll work on that.
>
> Thomas, Ingo, through which tree should these patches routed through?

I'm going to pull that into tip/genirq I guess

Thanks,

tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-18 11:49    [W:0.069 / U:1.816 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site