[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100602081432.7a5e5f5d@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 08:14:32 +0200
From: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, 640e9920@...il.com,
markgross@...gnar.org, Arve Hj?nnev?g <arve@...roid.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pm_qos: remove unnecessary list-traversal
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 12:43:21 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010, florian@...kler.org wrote:
>
> > The new extreme value is only depending on the old extreme value and
> > the changed value.
>
> And how does that update to the next applicable constraint when the
> current constraint is removed ? Your patch is creating a one way
> decision.
keeping the list sorted or using an rbtree is the answer then.
if O(1) behaviour is needed maybe another constraint type could be
implemented. Maybe using a bool or even a bitmap (to allow for 32
constraint-values).
Is another constraint-type worthwile?
>
> > Signed-off-by: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
> > ---
> > This version actually compiles... :)
>
> That does not make it work.
>
> tglx
indeed.
Cheers,
Flo
--
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