| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Matthew Garrett on the race to idleMatthew Garrett on the race to idlePosted May 10, 2008 10:27 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)In reply to: Matthew Garrett on the race to idle by farnz Parent article: Matthew Garrett on the race to idle
I agree with that. Applications need to be able to indicate that they're unable to tolerate latency, and the scheduler and CPU governor need to cope with the extra restriction. I've been talking to some of the embedded people about this, in terms of what sort of userspace-visible knobs we need for effective power management without screwing up userspace.
(Log in to post comments)
Matthew Garrett on the race to idle Posted May 12, 2008 17:03 UTC (Mon) by mgross (subscriber, #38112) [Link] kernel/pm_qos_params.c provides an interface for communicating acceptable latencies. (new in 2.6.25) --mgross
Matthew Garrett on the race to idle Posted May 13, 2008 0:49 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] ... and it's built in unconditionally, even if you have no power management configured, which seems rather strange.
|
|
||||||||||||