[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0908292043500.26533-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:48:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: linux-pm <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] PM: Asynchronous resume of devices
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I only wanted to say that the advantage is not really that "big". :-)
>
> > I must agree, 14 threads isn't a lot. But at the moment that number is
> > random, not under your control.
>
> It's not directly controlled, but there are some interactions between the
> async threads, the main threads and the async framework that don't allow this
> number to grow too much.
>
> IMO it sometimes is better to allow things to work themselves out, as long as
> they don't explode, than to try to keep everything under strict control. YMMV.
For testing purposes it would be nice to have a one-line summary for
each device containing a thread ID, start timestamp, end timestamp, and
elapsed time. With that information you could evaluate the amount of
parallelism and determine where the bottlenecks are. It would give a
much more detailed picture of the entire process than the total time of
your recent patch 9.
Alan Stern
--
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