From: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
To: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>,
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: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:04:16 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49834F30.3040706@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1f1b08da0901290936k71d016fcme81f04ca16029a7c@mail.gmail.com>
john stultz wrote:
> As an aside, there are some further hardware limitations in the
> timekeeping core that limit the amount of time the hardware can sleep.
> For instance, the acpi_pm clocksource wraps every 2.5 seconds or so,
> so we have to wake up periodically to sample it to avoid wrapping
> issues.
>
> Just to be able to deal with all the different hardware out there, the
> timekeeping core expects to wake up twice a second to do this
> sampling. It may be possible to push this out if you are using other
> clocksources (HPET/TSC), but if sleeps for longer then a second are a
> needed feature, we probably will need some infrastructure in the
> timekeeping core that can be queried to make sure its safe.
The variable "max_delta_ns" is used by the dynamic tick to govern the
maximum time a given device can sleep. Hence, this variable should be
configured as necessary for the device you are using. Therefore, if your
device has a timer that will wrap every 2.5 seconds, then for this
device the "max_delta_ns" should be configure so that it does not exceed
this time.
So what I was proposing is that for devices that have timers that would
allow you to sleep beyond ~2.15 seconds (current max imposed by the
clockevent_delta2ns function), why not increase the dynamic range (make
this a 64-bit variable) or base (ie. from nanoseconds to milliseconds)
to permit longer sleep times for devices that can support them? This
should not have any negative impact on devices that cannot support such
long sleep times.
So far I have not encountered any issues with doing this. Let me know if
this does or does not address your concerns.
Cheers
Jon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-30 19:04 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
2009-01-29 17:36 ` john stultz
2009-01-30 19:04 ` Jon Hunter [this message]
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=49834F30.3040706@ti.com \
--to=jon-hunter@ti.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--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