On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > So it might be much better if we instead re-introduced that kind of "DMA
> > latency requirement", and letting different subsystems react to that as
> > they may.
>
> wait.... we HAVE that infrastructure .. see kernel/latency.c ...
Heh. Just shows how wellknown that interface is - it seems like it's only
used by the ipw2100 driver and "pcm_native".
But yes, that looks like the right thing.
> and the C-state code will honor it. CPUFREQ doesn't honor it yet but
> that's easy to add.. (this assumes the ACPI BIOS informs us correctly
> about the cpu behavior, but that's the best we can do obviously unless
> you want a table inside the kernel keyed off vendor/model/stepping)
Do we actually have the latency information for these things? Especially
since I assume a number of people use the specialized direct-hw-access
cpufreq drivers..
I realize that we *have* "transition_latency" at the cpufreq layer, and it
is supposed to be in ns, but I wonder how likely it is to bear any
relationship to reality, considering that I don't think it's really used
for anything.. (yeah, it affects the heuristics, but I don't think it has
any _hard_ meaning, so I'd worry that it's not necessarily something that
people have tried to make accurate).
But I dunno.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
