On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:50:02PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:05 AM, mark gross <640e9920@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:07:37AM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> ...
> >> +static void update_target_val(int pm_qos_class, s32 val)
> >> +{
> >> + s32 extreme_value;
> >> + s32 new_value;
> >> + extreme_value = atomic_read(&pm_qos_array[pm_qos_class]->target_value);
> >> + new_value = pm_qos_array[pm_qos_class]->comparitor(val,extreme_value);
> >> + if (extreme_value != new_value)
> >> + atomic_set(&pm_qos_array[pm_qos_class]->target_value,new_value);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >
> > Only works 1/2 the time, but I like the idea!
> > It fails to get the righ answer when constraints are reduced. But, this
> > idea is a good improvement i'll roll into the next pm_qos update!
> >
>
> I think it would be a better idea to track your constraints with a
> sorted data structure. That way you can to better than O(n) for both
> directions. If you have a lot of constraints with the same value, it
> may even be worthwhile to have a two stage structure where for
> instance you use a rbtree for the unique values and list for identical
> constraints.
I don't agree, we went through this tree vrs list discussion a few times
before in other areas of the kernel. Wherever the list tended to be
short, a simple list wins. However; we can try it, after we have some
metrics and stress test cases identified we can measure its effectivenes
against.
--mgross
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
