Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure

From: Nick Piggin
Date: Fri Aug 25 2006 - 00:53:49 EST


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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/