[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1200461174.26885.4.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:26:14 +0800
From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]PCIE ASPM support - takes 2
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 22:56 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:02:26 +0800, Shaohua Li said:
>
> > In my test, power difference between powersave mode and performance mode
> > is about 1.3w in a system with 3 PCIE links.
>
> Do you have any numbers on what the added latency is for powersave mode, and
> a rough idea of how quickly chipsets will drop to low-power? It may affect
> usability a lot if it's "adds 10ms latency after 100ms idle" or "adds 100ms
> latency after 5 seconds idle" or some other pattern...
>
> (The chipset in my laptop claims to be an 82801G with 4 PCI-Express ports on
> it - I'm trying to get a rough idea what usage I'd get out of that feature..)
No, I thought to get the latency impact with ASPM enabled, but haven't
found a way to measure it. This is why the default setting of ASPM
currently is using BIOS setting.
Thanks,
Shaohua
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists