Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday 24 December 2009, Nigel Cunningham wrote: >> Hi. > > Hi, > >> I built the async branch of your tree and tested it, also running >> 2.6.33-rc1 + TuxOnIce for comparison. Dmesg for both are attached. Is >> there anything I can/should be doing for you on top of this? > > No, thanks a lot. > >> I'll try Dmitry's patch on top of this a little later - other things to do first. > > No need for that, the patchset contains an equivalent of the Dmitry's patch. > >> I noticed that you were doing standard deviations in your stats - how >> many runs were you basing them on? > > I usually run 10 iterations of suspend-resume for each configuration. > The raw data are at http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/data/async-suspend-updated.pdf > if you're interested. > >> Not sure that I can be bothered to do too many - too much else to do! > > Sure, thanks a lot anyway. Your data confirn that there's a measurable gain > from suspending and resuming devices asynchronously. It did? I thought it showed no difference at all! I'll see if I can find the time to do the other computers, then. We're going away for a couple of weeks on Monday, though, so I'm not sure that I'll get the time beforehand. Nigel -- 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
