Re: [PATCH 09/12] irq: implement IRQ expecting

[Tejun Heo]

On 06/17/2010 01:12 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Hmmm.... oh, I see.  Wouldn't it be much better to use moving avg of
>> IRQ durations instead of letting the driver specify it?  Drivers are
>> most likely to just hard code it and It's never gonna be accurate.
> 
> Right, but that's probably more accurate than the core code heuristics
> ever will be.

Eh, not really.  For ATA at least, there will be three different
classes of devices.  SSDs, hard drives and optical devices and if we
get running avg w/ fairly large stability part, the numbers wouldn't
be too far off and there's no reliable way for the driver to tell
which type of device is on the other side of the cable.  So, I think
running avg would work much better.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/