Message-ID: <4C1A5197.8060409@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:47:19 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       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
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>	<20100617124343.5889067c@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>	<4C1A4548.3020602@kernel.org> <20100617090229.543af62c@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100617090229.543af62c@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1657
Lines: 41

On 06/17/2010 06:02 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:54:48 +0200
> Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
>> Crazy devices too but I think they would
>> fall in a single tick any way. 
> 
> not sure what ticks have to do with anything but ok ;)

Eh... right, I was thinking about something else.  IRQ expect code
originally had a tick based duration estimator to determine poll
interval which I ripped out later for simpler stepped adjustments.
c-state would need higher frequency timing measurements than jiffies.

>> At any rate, let's say I have those
>> numbers, how would I feed it into c-state selection?
> 
> if we have this, we need to put a bit of glue in the backend that
> tracks (per cpu I suppose) the shortest expected interrupt, which
> the C state code then queries.
> (and in that regard, it does not matter if shortest expected is
> computed via heuristic on a per irq basis, or passed in).
> 
> mapping an irq to a cpu is not a 100% science (since interrupts can
> move in theory), but just assuming that the irq will happen on the same
> CPU it happened last time is more than good enough.

Hmmm... the thing is that there will be many cases which won't fit
irq_expect() model (why irq_watch() exists in the first place) and for
the time being libata is the only one providing that data.  Would the
data still be useful to determine which c-state to use?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/