Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:43:43 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>, mingo@elte.hu, bphilips@suse.de,
       yinghai@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
       torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       jeff@garzik.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu,
       gregkh@suse.de, khali@linux-fr.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/12] irq: implement IRQ expecting
Message-ID: <20100617124343.5889067c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4C1A05AF.5010405@kernel.org>
References: <1276443098-20653-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
	<1276443098-20653-10-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
	<20100616204854.4b036f87@infradead.org>
	<4C19DA64.8000409@kernel.org>
	<alpine.LFD.2.00.1006171310560.4290@localhost.localdomain>
	<4C1A05AF.5010405@kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 871
Lines: 24

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:23:27 +0200
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:

> On 06/17/2010 01:12 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> Hmmm.... oh, I see.  Wouldn't it be much better to use moving avg of
> >> IRQ durations instead of letting the driver specify it?  Drivers are
> >> most likely to just hard code it and It's never gonna be accurate.
> > 
> > Right, but that's probably more accurate than the core code heuristics
> > ever will be.
> 
> Eh, not really.  For ATA at least, there will be three different
> classes of devices.  SSDs, hard drives and optical devices

At least four: It may also be battery backed RAM.

Alan


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/