From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lixom.net (lixom.net [66.141.50.11]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59256DE21C for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:38:59 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:56:31 -0500 To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH] hvc_console polling mode timer backoff Message-ID: <20070413015631.GA11134@lixom.net> References: <1176394477.28514.32.camel@farscape.rchland.ibm.com> <20070412173334.GP4747@austin.ibm.com> <1176403411.28514.55.camel@farscape.rchland.ibm.com> <20070412190902.GA8158@lixom.net> <1176425143.4734.8.camel@concordia.ozlabs.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1176425143.4734.8.camel@concordia.ozlabs.ibm.com> From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson) Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 10:45:43AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 14:09 -0500, Olof Johansson wrote: > > I wasn't going to bring it up since I think it's a good approach as is, > > but another thing that could be worth considering is to not just go > > from whatever value to min on every actual input, instead go down in > > delay a bit (say half the delay). Likewise you might be able to back off > > more aggressively than just one millisecond per iteration. Of course, > > both of these should take min/max values into consideration. > > I experimented with increasing the delay faster (100ms per iteration) > and found it effected the feel of the console too much when you're > actually typing. Though perhaps increasing by 10%-20% of the current > delay every iteration might work OK. Ok, no need to do it differently then really. I mostly wondered if someone had already experimented. -Olof