From: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Dynamic Tick and Deferrable Timer Support
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:29:11 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4981D957.8040409@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7E82351C108FA840AB1866AC776AEC464723835C@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> max_delta would depend on the timer in the platform. With HPET this
> should be much larger than 2.15 secs.
So I agree that the HPET hardware in newer devices themselves would
allow longer sleep periods. However, this is not the problem I was raising.
The problem is that the dynamic tick uses a 32-bit variable,
max_delta_ns, to define that max sleep time of a device in nanoseconds.
The maximum value that this variable can be assigned is LONG_MAX or
0x7fffffff nanoseconds (see function clockevent_delta2ns). The value
0x7fffffff nanoseconds equates to ~2.15 seconds. Hence, without
increasing the dynamic range of max_delta_ns (ie. make this a 64-bit
integer) or change the base of this variable from nanoseconds to
milliseconds, I don't see how the device will ever sleep for longer than
~2.15 seconds.
I have spent several weeks trying to suppress kernel timers using the
deferred timers and lengthen the sleep time. I am now able to get the
device to sleep for minutes but I found that max_delta_ns is a limiting
factor. I will be surprised if you can sleep for longer than ~2.15
seconds with the current implementation.
Let me know if this makes sense.
> Ok. Thinking about it a bit more, I think we can push this
> patch along.
> Thomas/Andrew, can one of you pick up this patch..
Great thanks.
Jon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-29 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-14 20:03 [RFC] Dynamic Tick and Deferrable Timer Support Hunter, Jon
2009-01-15 6:16 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 18:23 ` Hunter, Jon
2009-01-26 19:48 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2009-01-26 21:41 ` Hunter, Jon
2009-01-27 18:36 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2009-01-27 18:45 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2009-01-29 16:29 ` Jon Hunter [this message]
2009-01-29 17:36 ` john stultz
2009-01-30 19:04 ` Jon Hunter
2009-01-30 20:29 ` john stultz
2009-02-07 9:20 ` Pavel Machek
2009-02-07 9:20 ` Pavel Machek
2009-02-09 19:10 ` John Stultz
2009-04-08 19:20 ` Hunter, Jon
2009-04-08 22:52 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-09 15:02 ` Jon Hunter
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=4981D957.8040409@ti.com \
--to=jon-hunter@ti.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
/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