From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Cc: Tim Schmielau <tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de>,
john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
george anzinger <george@mvista.com>
Subject: Re: gradual timeofday overhaul
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:09:29 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1098292168.1429.96.camel@krustophenia.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1098258460.26595.4320.camel@d845pe>
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 03:47, Len Brown wrote:
> The current design with HZ=1000 gives us 1ms = 1000usec between clock
> ticks. But some platforms take nearly that long just to enter/exit low
> power states; which means that on Linux the hardware pays a long idle
> state exit latency (performance hit) but gets little or no power savings
> from the time it resides in that idle state.
My testing shows that the timer interrupt runs for about 21 usec.
That's 2.1% of its time just running the timer ISR! No wonder this
causes PM issues, 2.1% cpu load is not exactly an idle machine. This is
a 600Mhz C3, so on a slower embedded system this might be 5%.
So, any solution that would allow high res timers with Hz = 100 would be
welcome.
Lee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-20 17:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-19 18:21 process start time set wrongly at boot for kernel 2.6.9 Jerome Borsboom
2004-10-19 20:11 ` john stultz
2004-10-20 0:42 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-10-20 0:59 ` john stultz
2004-10-20 3:05 ` gradual timeofday overhaul Tim Schmielau
2004-10-20 7:47 ` Len Brown
2004-10-20 15:09 ` George Anzinger
2004-10-20 15:59 ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-10-20 15:17 ` George Anzinger
2004-10-20 17:09 ` Lee Revell [this message]
2004-10-20 21:42 ` Len Brown
2004-10-20 18:13 ` john stultz
2004-10-20 14:51 ` process start time set wrongly at boot for kernel 2.6.9 George Anzinger
2004-10-20 17:42 ` john stultz
2004-10-20 23:52 ` George Anzinger
2004-10-21 0:25 ` john stultz
2004-10-21 1:04 ` George Anzinger
2004-10-27 7:55 ` Tim Schmielau
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-10-21 8:32 gradual timeofday overhaul Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2004-10-21 21:17 ` George Anzinger
2004-10-21 22:40 ` Chris Friesen
2004-10-25 23:12 ` George Anzinger
2004-10-25 23:51 ` Chris Friesen
2004-10-21 21:32 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
2004-10-21 22:36 ` Chris Friesen
2004-10-22 0:21 ` George Anzinger
2004-10-22 0:29 Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1098292168.1429.96.camel@krustophenia.net \
--to=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.