On Thu, 17 Dec 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > That actually is correct. On the nx6325 suspend is totally dominated by disk > spindown, almost everything else is negligible compared to it (well, except for > the audio), so we can't go down below 1 s during suspend on this box. > > On the Wind, disk spindown time is comparable with serio suspend time, > so at least in principle we should be able to get .5 s suspend on this box - > if the disk spindown in async. > > In turn, the resume on the Wind is dominated by disk spinup, so we can't > go below 1.5 s on this box during resume (notice that the "async+extra" > approach brings us close to this limit, although we could save .5 s more in > principle by making more devices async). > > Resume on the nx6325 is a different story, though, as it is dominated by USB > and PCI devices, so marking those as async would probably bring us close to > the limit. The implications seem pretty clear. If the following sorts of devices were async: USB (devices and interfaces), PCI, serio, SCSI (hosts, targets, devices) then we would reap close to the maximum benefit -- providing: async threads are started in a first pass without waiting for synchronous devices, and It's not clear that making all these types of devices async will really work, but it's worth testing. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
