[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120917055306.GA29081@lizard>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 22:53:07 -0700
From: Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Leonid Moiseichuk <leonid.moiseichuk@...ia.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
patches@...aro.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/4] Deferrable timers support for timerfd API
Hi all,
On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 10:43:35PM -0700, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> This patch set implements a userland-side API for generic deferrable
> timers, per linux/timer.h:
>
> * A deferrable timer will work normally when the system is busy, but
> * will not cause a CPU to come out of idle just to service it; instead,
> * the timer will be serviced when the CPU eventually wakes up with a
> * subsequent non-deferrable timer.
>
> These timers are crucial for power saving, i.e. periodic tasks that want
> to work in background when the system is under use, but don't want to
> cause wakeups themselves.
Just a friendly ping. Does anyone had a chance to look into this,
whether the idea bad or good, or whether the implementation is OK?
Thanks!
Anton.
--
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