[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0912091051450.4120-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:57:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Async resume patch (was: Re: [GIT PULL] PM updates for 2.6.33)
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That's partly why I realy did suggest that we do the async stuff purely in
> the USB layer, rather than try to put it deeper in the device layer. And
> if we do support it "natively" in the device layer like Rafael's latest
> patch, I still think we should be very very nervous about making devices
> async unless there is a measured - and very noticeable - advantage.
Agreed. Arjan's measurements indicated that USB was one of the biggest
offenders; everything else other than the PS/2 mouse was much faster.
Given these results there isn't much incentive to do anything else
asynchronously.
(However other devices not present on Arjan's machine may be a
different story. Spinning up multiple external disks is a good example
-- although here it may be necessary for the driver to take charge,
because spinning up a disk requires a lot of power and doing too many
of them at the same time could be bad.)
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