On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:47:07 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

quoted text
> > (it's not perfect by any means but it works ;-)
> 
> Gah, right. How about adding the following:
> 
> /*
>  * The immediate goal is minimizing wakeups, not running
>  * timers at the earliest interrupt after their soft expiration.
>  * This allows us to avoid using a Priority Search Tree,
>  * which can answer a stabbing querry for overlapping
>  * intervals and instead use the simple BST we already have.
>  * We don't add extra wakeups by delaying timers that are
>  * right-of a not yet expired timer, because that timer will
>  * have to trigger a wakeup anyway.
>  */

fair enough; I'll merge this in (I'm not going to resend the whole
series just for this redo though... maybe when there's more feedback
I'll roll it all up)
thanks!

-- 
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
unsubscribe notice
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/