[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJvTdKkF1Z9eUwjv4-idzCUTzD_MdEeZWOxkB+VmGoEcnJfk-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:19:49 -0400
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
axboe@...nel.dk, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
mturquette@...aro.org,
Tuukka Tikkanen <tuukka.tikkanen@...aro.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD PATCH 01/10] sched: add io latency framework
> There is a rb tree per cpu. Each time a task is blocked on an IO, it
> is inserted into the tree. When the IO is complete and the task is
> woken up, its avg latency is updated with the time spent to wait the
> IO and it is removed from the tree. The next time, it will be inserted
> into the tree again in case of io_schedule.
Is there an assumption built-in here that the device interrupt is targeted
at the same CPU as where the task is queued?
thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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