On Wednesday 02 June 2010, mark gross wrote:
> 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.
How many different values are there to handle?
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
