[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070130094205.GA2888@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:42:05 +0100
From: Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>
To: Alessandro Di Marco <dmr@....it>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] System Inactivity Monitor v1.0
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:42:08PM +0100, Alessandro Di Marco wrote:
> Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> writes:
>
> Hi!
>
> > The /proc/bus/input/devices has an extensible structure. You can just
> > add an "A:" line (for Activity) instead of adding a new proc file.
> >
> > I know, but IMO there is too much stuff to parse in there. Activity counters
> > are frequently accessed by daemons, and four or five concurrent daemons are the
> > norm in a typical X11 linux box...
>
> Syscalls are fast enough, and the file is _very_ easy (=> fast) to parse.
>
> > Also, the activity counters should IMO coincide with the event times
> > passed through /dev/input/event, and should not be jiffies based.
> > Ideally, both should be based on clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC).
> >
> > In evdev.c do_gettimeofday() is used. Anyway I just need of a monotonic
> > counter, so get_jiffies_64() wouldn't be better? It isn't affected by wrapping
> > issues and it is probably faster than do_gtod().
>
> Just use same time source rest of inputs already do...
>
> OK, but what about the time-warp problem?. To fix it I need to know when the
> system goes to sleep/resumes. In SIN I've solved via the platform driver,
> introducing suspend() resume() callbacks...
Well, you just need to make sure that a resume() actually is a visible
event ...
--
Vojtech Pavlik
Director SuSE Labs
-
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