From: Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>,
Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, shaohua.li@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent clockevent event_handler ending up handler_noop
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:36:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080903173627.GA7767@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0809031908270.3243@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 07:15:16PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > See what such highres-deprived people as myself (PIT, acpi_pm,
> > _no_ HPET and thus no IRQed highres timer) are doing now,
>
> Err. PIT + acpi_pm works with highres. acpi_pm is a stable clocksource
> and PIT is not a good, but a usable oneshot timer.
Hmm. What I'm interested in is longer wakeup timeouts (ACPI C2/C3
stuff), which would be a problem with PIT (~20 forced wakeups per second)
but with my new timer that would work.
Oh, side question: it _is_ easily possible to then disable PIT IRQs
once my event device is registered, right? Otherwise I could forget
about power management benefits...
And of course I'm interested in very short delays as well ("highres"),
which my timer could provide.
> > And any hints on how to possibly (reliably!) provide both clock_event_device
> > (oneshot) _and_ clocksource for a _single_ IRQed countdown timer?
>
> No. For a reliable clocksource you need an ever increasing /
> decreasing counter, which just wraps around when the max. count is
> reached.
>
> If you use a single shot timer, which is reprogrammed after every
> interrupt, then you will deviate from the time line as you have no
> idea how long it took from the counter reaching zero to the point
> where you reload the timer. Simply wont work.
Yup, that's exactly what I thought, slowly deviating from the timing
that it actually should have been, due to reprogramming...
So as I see it, the most beneficial thing I can do is to provide
a clock_event_device only.
Reasoning being that acpi_pm already is an easily accessible (fast)
reliable clocksource,
yet PIT is a _very_ slow (ISA timing) relatively coarse and
force-wakeupping event device.
Then additionally upgrade my driver to do mmapped access to this
PCI-MEM-capable sound card, and there we go with a fast and fine-grained
event device.
Out of interest: how big would you believe the benefit to be?
(overall system performance gains and ACPI PM benefits)
Thanks,
Andreas Mohr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-09-03 17:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-09-02 23:20 Venki Pallipadi
2008-09-02 23:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-03 16:43 ` Andreas Mohr
2008-09-03 17:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-03 17:36 ` Andreas Mohr [this message]
2008-09-03 19:01 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-04 8:15 ` Andreas Mohr
2008-09-04 8:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080903173627.GA7767@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de \
--to=andi@lisas.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®