[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0908311006490.10295-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:09:54 -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 10] PM: Measure suspend and resume times for individual
devices (was: Re: [PATCH 2/6] PM: Asynchronous resume of devices)
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Of course it would. I think I'll implement it.
>
> OK, below is a patch for that. It only prints the time elapsed, because the
> timestamps themselves can be obtained from the usual kernel timestamping.
Does that include the start timestamps? I don't see them anywhere in
the patch. Without the start timestamps we have no way to know how
much time was spent waiting for dpm_list_mtx or other resources as
opposed to actually carrying out the operation.
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