On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > timer whenever there is any activity, and when the timer expires you know > > the device has been idle long enough that you should suspend it. That's > > exactly how the autosuspend infrastructure works. > > This would call mod_timer() for every completed in-URB. Are you > sure this is better than an approach maintaining a periodical timer > and check for IO in the meantime?
I am not sure it's better. The decision had to be made when I was designing the autosuspend stuff, and I decided to go this way. Maybe it was a wrong decision... it's hard to tell. It does have the advantage of avoiding extra timer events while the device is in use, but as you pointed out, it has the disadvantage of lots of timer rescheduling. It's still possible to switch over to the approach you mentioned. Do you think we should try it? How would we measure the advantages or disadvantages? Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
