[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A55EAF9.9070907@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:04:57 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/18] periodic write-back timer optimization
Andi Kleen wrote:
> Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com> writes:
>
>> The patches attempt to optimize the periodic write-back and stop it when
>> there are no dirty data. IOW, we do not want the thread to wake up every
>> 5 seconds (by default), find there is nothing to do, and so on.
>
> Is waking up every 5 seconds really a problem?
Yes, it is. In OMAP3 we may switch the core and most of peripherals
to off and we may stay in off and consume really few power. And waking
up from off every 5 seconds for no good reason is bad.
> The normal rule of thumb is iirc that longer sleep times than a few hundred
> ms give dimishing returns in terms of power saving.
I think our pm guys measured this on OMAP3 and it translates to
~hour of idle mode. And yes, this is bad for devices which
run from battery.
> A simple way might be simple to batch the timer better with other timers.
I agree. There is a lot of work in this direction. There are many
places where we could use range hrtimers or deferrable timers
and improve PM. But I consider this to be the second level of
optimization. The first level is to get rid of unneeded events
completely.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
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