Randy Dunlap wrote:
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?
yes
(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?
round_jiffies() API
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lesswatts.org/listinfo/discuss
