[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <729c3cfc-6f0a-fb1a-f8c7-0b7860a3d22e@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 06:45:58 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>, len.brown@...el.com,
rjw@...ysocki.net, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
yang.zhang.wz@...il.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods
On 7/20/2017 5:50 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> To make this work reasonably, you would also need some way to check for
> the case where the prediction idle time is short but the real idle time
> is very long.
so the case where you predict very short but is actually "indefinite", the real
solution likely is that we set a timer some time in the future
(say 100msec, or some other value that is long but not indefinite)
where we wake up the system and make a new prediction,
since clearly we were insanely wrong in the prediction and should try
again.
that or we turn the prediction from a single value into a range of
(expected, upper bound)
where upper bound is likely the next timer or other going-to-happen events.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists