Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Jun 2010 06:39:10 -0700 | From | mark gross <> | Subject | Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8) |
| |
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@gmail.com> 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
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |