On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:54:44 -0700 Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Randy Dunlap wrote: > >>> Any comments or suggestions? > >> > >> from the numbers you posted, I don't think you have a statistical > >> significant > >> difference either way... > > > > Yes. > > > >> but, more importantly, I wonder if the N numbers you are trying to delay > >> timers > >> are not too short in order for the system to actually draw much less > >> power. IOW > >> given your random load, C-state tables you might not expect to see that > >> much at all. > > > > OK, more testing with larger values of N: > > > > kernel 2.6.31 + patch(N=499): 160 Watts, 284.7 wakeups/second > > kernel 2.6.31 + patch(N=999): 147 Watts, 61.8 wakeups/second > > BUT test run takes 132 minutes instead of the usual 22 minutes!!! > > I would rather go to a "slack value" that is per caller... > so people who only need 1 second granularity accuracy will basically always > borrow some other wakeup...
So you are saying have a new kernel API that specifically includes the slack value, right? > (btw I'm surprised you get so many wakeups from traditional timers... might > be worth checking > if they can be rounded etc) Rounded how? can you be a bit more specific, please? --- ~Randy _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lesswatts.org/listinfo/discuss
