On 07.09.2005 [11:13:04 +0300], Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050906 23:55]:
>
> ...
>
> > Sigh, later than I had hoped, but here is what I have hashed out so far.
> > Does it seem like a step in the right direction? Rather hand-wavy, but I
> > think it's mostly correct ;)
>
> Some comments below.
Thanks, Tony!
> > - include/linux/intsource.h
> > with definitions in kernel/intsource.c
> >
> > #define DYN_TICK_ENABLED (1 << 1)
> > #define DYN_TICK_SUITABLE (1 << 0)
> >
> > #define DYN_TICK_MIN_SKIP 2
> >
> > /* Abstraction of an interrupt source
> > * @state: current state
> > * @max_skip: current maximum number of ticks to skip
> > * @arch_init: initialization routine
> > * @arch_enable_dyn_tick: called via sysfs to enable interrupt skipping
> > * @arch_disable_dyn_tick: called via sysfs to disable interrupt
> > * skipping
> > * @arch_set_all_cpus_idle: last cpu to go idle calls this, which should
> > * disable any timesource (e.g. PIT on x86)
> > * @arch_recover_time: handler for returning from skipped ticks and keeping
> > * time consistent
> > */
> > struct interrupt_source {
> > unsigned int state;
> > unsigned long max_skip;
> > int (*arch_init) (void);
> > void (*arch_enable_dyn_tick) (void);
> > void (*arch_disable_dyn_tick) (void);
> > unsigned long (*arch_reprogram) (unsigned long); /* return number of
> > ticks skipped */
> > unsigned long (*arch_recover_time) (int, void *, struct pt_regs *); /*
> > handler in arm */
> > /* following empty in UP */
> > void (*arch_set_all_cpus_idle) (int);
> > spinlock_t lock;
> > };
>
> I would still call the struct dyntick, have CONFIG_DYNTICK, and then have
> CONFIG_NO_IDLE_HZ and possibly CONFIG_SUBJIFFIE_TIMER register to use it
> like I said in my earlier mail. Would that solve the issues you have
> with the naming?
I'll respond more fully there, but I think it might. If that's the case,
though, I think I'll just push all of the code down into timer.c and
timer.h, no need for a separate file, really. I'll mull it over, see
what the others think as well...
> > /* return number of ticks skipped, potentially for accounting purposes? */
> > extern unsigned long reprogram_interrupt(void);
>
> The number of ticks skipped can be potentially used in idle loops to
> select which ACPI C state to go to depending on the estimated length of
> sleep.
Ah true!
Thanks,
Nish
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
