[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080722055421.2023d261@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:54:21 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Imprecise timers.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:19:02 +0200
Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl> wrote:
> On 22-07-08 05:02, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> > Many users of timers don't really care too much about exactly when
> > their timer fires -- and waking a CPU to satisfy such a timer is a
> > waste of power. This patch implements a 'range' timer which will
> > fire at a 'convenient' moment within given constraints.
> >
> > It's implemented by a deferrable timer at the beginning of the
> > range, which will run some time later when the CPU happens to be
> > awake. And a non-deferrable timer at the hard deadline, to ensure
> > it really does happen by then.
>
> Are there actually users for this (not just in theory)? The
> deferrable timer sort of sounds like all I'd ever want if I, as you
> say, wouldn't really care...
there's a few; mostly around hardware timeout..For example Stephen want
it for his drivers.
EXT3 journal flushing is another one where we can easily say
"between 4 and 7 seconds" rather than "exactly at 5"
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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