From: "Shem Multinymous" <multinymous@gmail.com>
To: "Dmitry Torokhov" <dtor@insightbb.com>
Cc: hdaps-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, rlove@rlove.org,
"Linux Kernel ML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org>,
"Michael Riepe" <michael@mr511.de>,
"Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" <hmh@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [Hdaps-devel] [PATCH] hdaps - switch to using input-polldev
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:56:34 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41840b750707092256i280b6f00oac7b25004bf27bea@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200707092358.08529.dtor@insightbb.com>
On 7/9/07, Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > Sounds good, then. It's a bit of a hack, but the benefits are well
> > worth it (if we can resolve the scheduling issue).
>
> You know, I slept on it and I think I want to move the polldev into
> opposite direction - to accomodte devices that need "relaxed" polling
> and are ok with polling being a bit irregular and maybe even rounded
> to next jiffy or something to better accomodate tickless kernels.
How about letting drivers and/or clients explicitly express their
scheduling needs, e.g., in terms of a desired polling rate and a
desired bound on scheduling irregularity? Given these requirements,
input-polldev will try to satisfy all requests (i.e., the harshest
one) made by the driver and current clients, on a "best effort" basis,
using minimal resources. (There should also be a way for a driver to
say "don't bother to poll more often than X or with regularity better
than Y even if a client asks for it -- the hardware isn't that fast
anyway".)
This way the same infrastructure could smoothly handle devices and
apps with vastly different polling needs.
That doesn't help much with the workqueue vs. timers issue, of course,
unless input-polldev implements *both*.
Shem
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-07-10 5:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200705252354.43730.dtor@insightbb.com>
2007-07-09 1:00 ` Shem Multinymous
2007-07-09 3:24 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-07-09 4:31 ` Shem Multinymous
2007-07-09 4:53 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-07-09 5:29 ` Shem Multinymous
2007-07-09 5:44 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-07-09 6:06 ` Shem Multinymous
2007-07-10 3:58 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-07-10 5:56 ` Shem Multinymous [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=41840b750707092256i280b6f00oac7b25004bf27bea@mail.gmail.com \
--to=multinymous@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=dtor@insightbb.com \
--cc=hdaps-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=hmh@debian.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michael@mr511.de \
--cc=rlove@rlove.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®