| 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: <1156456349.6951.10.camel@dwalker1.mvista.com> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:52:29 -0700 From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> 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 Thu, 2006-08-24 at 19:41 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Subject: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure > From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> > > The patch below adds infrastructure to track "maximum allowable latency" for power > saving policies. > > 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). > The code that today makes this tradeoff just does a rather simple algorithm; I was just thinking that it might be cleaner to register a structure instead of tracking identifiers to usecs. You might get a speed up on some of the operations, like unregister. Another thing I was thinking about is that this seems somewhat contrary to the idea of using dynamic tick (assuming it was in mainline) to heuristically pick a power state. Do you have any thoughts on how you would combine the two? Daniel - 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