linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 3)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1156783699.3034.223.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:48:19 +0200
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Andreas Mohr <andi@...x01.fht-esslingen.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	jesse.barnes@...el.com, dwalker@...sta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 3)


> Another question is how one would do callback processing in idle handler:
> one could figure out the idle mode (latency) in advance and *then* call
> only all those idle callbacks that have more stringent requirements
> than the currently calculated idle mode's latency (and then calculate
> the idle mode again based on the current time after all those callbacks??),
> or one could just unconditionally call all idle handlers and then figure out
> idle length and go to sleep. Which one is better?


I'm not sure about either actually. Well if it's just to refill stuff
etc then I would just call all. After all it may save interrupts and
early wakeups if you do this, so there's a power advantage to be gained.

-
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/