[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090716080731.GB8046@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:07:31 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pm <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-acpi <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
"Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] device async action mechanism
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:14:43AM +0800, Zhang Rui wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 18:41 +0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com> writes:
> > >
> > > Currently, in order to make sure that it won't bring any side effects,
> > > I only convert the ACPI battery and i8042 to use this framework, which reduces
> > > 0.5s+ S3 time(suspend time plus resume time), from 7.0s to less than 6.5s.
> >
> > 10.5s+ was intended I guess?
> >
> what do you mean?
I am confused by you writing
"reduces <small number> from <much larger number> to <still larger number>"
So I assumed you dropped a decimal on <small number>
>
> the kernel device suspend time is reduced from 3.2s to 2.8s after
> applying this patch set in my test box.
> And I get more optimistic numbers on another laptop, an Eeepc 901,
> from about 2s to 1.6s. And the shutdown time is also reduced 0.4s.
I think I am still confused by your numbers.
How do the 0.5s and the 7.0s relate?
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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