From: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
To: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>,
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Dynamic Tick and Deferrable Timer Support
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 10:20:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090207092049.GE1411@ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1233347396.8861.15.camel@localhost.localdomain>
> > So what I was proposing is that for devices that have timers that would
> > allow you to sleep beyond ~2.15 seconds (current max imposed by the
> > clockevent_delta2ns function), why not increase the dynamic range (make
> > this a 64-bit variable) or base (ie. from nanoseconds to milliseconds)
> > to permit longer sleep times for devices that can support them? This
> > should not have any negative impact on devices that cannot support such
> > long sleep times.
>
> No objection to max_delta_ns being increased, but whatever code manages
> it will probably need to query the timekeeping core in some fashion to
> make sure the timer hardware max isn't larger then the clocksource
> hardware max. I've provided a rough sketch at what the timekeeping code
> would probably look like below.
>
> > So far I have not encountered any issues with doing this. Let me know if
> > this does or does not address your concerns.
>
> There may be some other issues here, such as NTP over-correction issues
> (for instance: ntp trying to correct for a 1us offset over the next
> second, but ends up applying it for 10 seconds) if we defer for a really
> long time. But at that point, we might as well suspend to ram, like the
> OLPC does.
Well, there's still some way to go before auto-sleep is
possible. android can do that, afaict, but on pc it is quite far away.
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-07 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-14 20:03 Hunter, Jon
2009-01-15 6:16 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-26 18:23 ` Hunter, Jon
2009-01-26 19:48 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2009-01-26 21:41 ` Hunter, Jon
2009-01-27 18:36 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2009-01-27 18:45 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2009-01-29 16:29 ` Jon Hunter
2009-01-29 17:36 ` john stultz
2009-01-30 19:04 ` Jon Hunter
2009-01-30 20:29 ` john stultz
2009-02-07 9:20 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2009-02-07 9:20 ` Pavel Machek
2009-02-09 19:10 ` John Stultz
2009-04-08 19:20 ` Hunter, Jon
2009-04-08 22:52 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-09 15:02 ` Jon Hunter
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=20090207092049.GE1411@ucw.cz \
--to=pavel@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=jon-hunter@ti.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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®