[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27240C0AC20F114CBF8149A2696CBE4A1DD2BA@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:30:30 +0000
From: "Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
CC: "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>, "rjw@...k.pl" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V2] watchdog: optimizing the hrtimer interval for power
saving
> It seems like a better approach would be to adjust the timer somehow when
> you change c-states. The whole point of the hard and softlockup is to
> detect if scheduled code is either deadlock or hogging the cpu for too long.
>
> If the cpu is in a deep sleep, then nothing is running, right? Which
> means nothing can deadlock or hog the cpu. In those cases you can
> probably temporarily disable the lockup detector until the cpu wakes up
> from that c-state and starts scheduling code again.
>
You are right, I ever tried the thought, when CPU is idle, we can pause the hrtimer,
After wakeup, we resume the hrtimer again. But I found sometimes the in idle and out of
idle is too frequent.
Anyway, you advice seems the right way, I will try to dig something more deeply.
Thanks.
> In that case you can really maximize your power savings (and probably get
> powerTop to stop telling everyone to disable the nmi_watchdog :-) ).
>
> Ideally in a deep sleep you don't want any soft interrupts running, no?
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Cheers,
> Don
--
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