[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091118195342.GA13627@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:53:42 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Cc: David Zeuthen <david@...ar.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
axboe@...nel.dk, linux-hotplug@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Add support for uevents on block device idle
changes
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 08:47:37PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 20:40, Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 08:30:07PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
> >
> >> Wouldn't it be good enough, if we add a file "idle_since" which
> >> contains the time of the actual disk idle time, and userspace can
> >> schedule a re-examination of that value at the actual end of the idle
> >> time it is looking for?
> >
> > That would require either polling or waking up a userspace application
> > on every disk access. Doing it in-kernel involves only a single timer
> > wakeup for every active/idle transition.
>
> How would it? If you look for, like a 60 seconds timeout, and the file
> contains 20, you schedule a wakeup in 40 seconds. If the file after
> the 40 seconds contains 60, you reached your idle timeout exactly at
> that moment, if it's less, then you re-calculate and start from the
> beginning.
How is that not polling? You'll repeatedly read a file looking for a
value that may never appear - imagine the case where you're waiting for
60 seconds of idleness, but the disk always becomes active again after
50.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.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