Hi! > > Ok, could we just do schedule_timeout(HZ/10) or something, but when we > > _know_ we woke someone, wakeup() that task? No new variables, keep > > existing logic. > > The logic doesn't change that much. :-) > > > That should still get most of the benefits, and be two liner, no? > > Well, I think we can avoid using refrigerator_called, if this is a problem, but > the patch won't be a two liner. Sure? The current process is ineffective because it polls. If we add schedule_timeout(HZ/10), we'll have still correct freezer (and it will not waste power any more), but it will delay freezing by HZ/20 on average. If we add wakeup() at strategic place, we should get rid of that delay... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
