From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
To: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Variable ticks
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:05:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42E5540D.1030709@tmr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F7DC2337C7631D4386A2DF6E8FB22B300424AA2D@hdsmsx401.amr.corp.intel.com>
Brown, Len wrote:
>
>
>>I was thinking about variable tick times, and I can think of three
>>classes of action needing CPU attention.
>>- device interrupts, which occur at no predictable time but would pull
>>the CPU out of a HLT or low power state.
>>- process sleeps of various kinds, which have a known time of
>>occurence.
>>- polled devices...
>>
>>Question one, are there other actions to consider?
>
>
> Yes.
> Speaking for ACPI C3 state, note that DMA also
> wakes up the CPU -- even if there was no device interrupt.
> (aka, "the trouble with USB")
Trouble? Why would USB do DMA unless there was a device activity?
>
>
>>Question two, what about those polled devices?
>
>
> it is a real challenge to save power under such conditions,
> unless you can throttle the polling rate such that
> the processor can actually enters idle while polling
> is underway.
>
>
>>I've been asked to give a high level overview of the recent discussion
>>for a meeting, and while I want to keep it at the level of "slower
>>clock, fewer interrupts" and "faster clock, better sleep
>>resolution," I
>>don't want to leave out any important issues, or be asked a question
>>(like how to handle polling devices) when I have no idea what
>>people are thinking in an area.
>
>
> From a power management point of view, what is important
> is what we do when idle. ie. on my laptop, from a power
> savings point of view, I wouldn't care
> much if HZ=1000 all the time if HZ=0 when in idle.
That could hurt the polling performance, all right. ;-)
>
> Outside of idle, the tick rate is much less important to
> power savings, unless the change in tick rate was significant
> enough to change the load enough that we'd want to change the
> target non-idle MHz of the processor.
Isn't that more or less what on demand does?
Thanks for the feedback, I can probably just say that DMA wakes the CPU
from C3 and let it ride, I don't want to skip it, but neither do I need
to go into detail.
--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-25 21:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-25 19:10 Variable ticks Brown, Len
2005-07-25 21:05 ` Bill Davidsen [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-07-26 16:08 Brown, Len
2005-07-25 21:19 Brown, Len
2005-07-25 21:25 ` Lee Revell
2005-07-27 8:13 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2005-07-27 20:43 ` Lee Revell
2005-07-27 21:06 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2005-07-27 22:03 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2005-07-26 15:50 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-07-25 18:59 Bill Davidsen
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=42E5540D.1030709@tmr.com \
--to=davidsen@tmr.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox