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? Should there be a callback so
they can be woken up? A callback would also allow ACPI to tell the
user "disabling C3 because of device <foo>" or somesuch, which might be
nice.
Also, should subsystems have the ability to set a lower bound on
latency? That would mean set_acceptable_latency() could fail,
indicating that the user should buy a better device or a system with
better realtime guarantees, which is also valuable info.
Comments aside, this is a nice interface, should help clarify things for
devices with response time limits.
Thanks,
Jesse
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
