linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/12] irq: implement IRQ expecting

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4C1C830B.5020806@kernel.org>
Date:	Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:42:51 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	tglx@...utronix.de, 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

Hello,

On 06/19/2010 10:35 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> 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...
> 
> I'm not sure it's really that useful to power optimize
> the lost interrupts polling case. It's just a last resort
> fallback anyways and will be always less power efficient
> because there will be unnecessary polls.

IIUC, it's not to help or optimize polling itself.  It just gives us a
way to estimate when the next interrupt would be so that power can be
optimized for non polling cases.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/