Re: Async suspend-resume patch w/ completions (was: Re: Asyncsuspend-resume patch w/ rwsems)

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> The summarized data are below (the "big" numbers are averages and the +/-
> numbers are standard deviations, all in milliseconds):
> 
> 			HP nx6325		MSI Wind U100
> 
> sync suspend		1482 (+/- 40)	1180 (+/- 24)
> sync resume		2955 (+/- 2)	3597 (+/- 25)
> 
> async suspend		1553 (+/- 49)	1177 (+/- 32)
> async resume		2692 (+/- 326)	3556  (+/- 33)
> 
> async+one-liner suspend	1600 (+/- 39)	1212 (+/- 41)
> async+one-liner resume	2692 (+/- 324)	3579 (+/- 24)
> 
> async+extra suspend	1496 (+/- 37)	1217 (+/- 38)
> async+extra resume	1859 (+/- 114)	1923 (+/- 35)
> 
> So, in my opinion, with the above set of "async" devices, it doesn't
> make sense to do async suspend at all, because the sync suspend is actually
> the fastest on both machines.

Hmm. I certainly agree - your numbers do not seem to support any async at 
all.

However, I do note that for the "extra patch" makes a big difference at 
resume time. That implies that the resume serializes on some slow device 
that wasn't marked async - and starting the async ones early avoids that. 

But without the per-device timings, it's hard to even guess what device 
that was.

But even that doesn't really help the suspend cases, only resume.

Do you have any sample timing output with devices listed?

			Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/