[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A127608.5020109@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:04:08 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Tero.Kristo@...ia.com
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Network stack timer hacks for power saving
Tero.Kristo@...ia.com a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I have been looking at network stack timer optimization for
> power saving in embedded ARM environment, basically trying to
> avoid as many wakeups as possible. I have changed several
> timers in the network stack into deferred ones, i.e. they do
> not wake up the device from low power modes but instead they
> are deferred until next wakeup from some other source, like
> another (non-deferred) timer or some I/O. Attached a patch
> about the changes I've done, is something like this safe to do?
>
> -Tero
Hi Tero
When tcp communications are active, we setup a timer for *every* frame
we receive or we send. These timers wont be deferrable anyway.
delaying one wakeup every 60 seconds (if I take your net/ipv4/route.c change)
wont change that much power savings, or did I missed something ?
On big routers, we need to set ip_rt_gc_interval from 60 seconds to one second,
in order to perform an effective garbage collection.
So, if we use a deferred timer and :
schedule_delayed_work(&expires_work, HZ);
How many times worker will be started every minute ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists