[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1006171310560.4290@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:12:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
bphilips@...e.de, yinghai@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jeff@...zik.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, gregkh@...e.de, khali@...ux-fr.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] irq: implement IRQ expecting
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Arjan.
>
> On 06/17/2010 05:48 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:31:35 +0200
> > Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> >> + */
> >> +void expect_irq(struct irq_expect *exp)
> >
> > I would like to suggest an (optional) argument to this with a duration
> > within which to expect an interrupt....
> >
> > that way in the backend we can plumb this also into the idle handler
> > for C state selection...
>
> Hmmm.... oh, I see. Wouldn't it be much better to use moving avg of
> IRQ durations instead of letting the driver specify it? Drivers are
> most likely to just hard code it and It's never gonna be accurate.
Right, but that's probably more accurate than the core code heuristics
ever will be.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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