On Tuesday, 31 July 2007 12:00, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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... But we'll need to know what to wake up ... Greetings, Rafael -- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
