| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200608241408.03853.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:08:03 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org> To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, len.brown@...el.com Subject: Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure 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 majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists