2010/6/2 mark gross <640e9920@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 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.
>
The list is not short. You have all the inactive and active
constraints on the same list. If you change it to a two level list
though, the list of unique values (which is the list you have to walk)
may be short enough for a tree to be overkill.
--
Arve Hjønnevåg
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
