On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Grazvydas Ignotas <notasas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM, <jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@xxxxxx> >> >> Update the data from the measurements performed at HW and SW levels. >> >> Cf. http://www.omappedia.org/wiki/Power_Management_Device_Latencies_Measurement >> for a detailed explanation on where are the numbers coming from. >> >> ... >> ToDo: >> - Measure the wake-up latencies for all power domains for OMAP3 >> - Correct some numbers when sys_clkreq and sys_offmode are supported >> >> Signed-off-by: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@xxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------- >> 1 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c >> index 2f95cfc..e406d7b 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cpuidle34xx.c >> @@ -39,27 +39,41 @@ > <snip> >> static struct cpuidle_params cpuidle_params_table[] = { >> - /* C1 */ >> - {2 + 2, 5, 1}, >> - /* C2 */ >> - {10 + 10, 30, 1}, >> - /* C3 */ >> - {50 + 50, 300, 1}, >> - /* C4 */ >> - {1500 + 1800, 4000, 1}, >> - /* C5 */ >> - {2500 + 7500, 12000, 1}, >> - /* C6 */ >> - {3000 + 8500, 15000, 1}, >> - /* C7 */ >> - {10000 + 30000, 300000, 1}, >> + /* C1 . MPU WFI + Core active */ >> + {73 + 78, 152, 1}, >> + /* C2 . MPU WFI + Core inactive */ >> + {165 + 88, 345, 1}, >> + /* C3 . MPU CSWR + Core inactive */ >> + {163 + 182, 345, 1}, >> + /* C4 . MPU OFF + Core inactive */ >> + {2852 + 605, 150000, 1}, >> + /* C5 . MPU RET + Core RET */ >> + {800 + 366, 2120, 1}, >> + /* C6 . MPU OFF + Core RET */ >> + {4080 + 801, 215000, 1}, >> + /* C7 . MPU OFF + Core OFF */ >> + {4300 + 13000, 215000, 1}, >> }; > > These (C1 at least) seem to look quite a bit better than what we see here: > http://marc.info/?t=133375282700004&r=1&w=2 > according to that wiki log, some of those measurements are from 2010, > I wonder if that still matches today's code well. Those figures are for the HW part of the low power transitions assuming that the SW overhead (in omap_sram_idle) is minimal, which seems to not be true anymore. I need to measure the latencies again on the latest SW. Thanks, Jean > > > -- > Gražvydas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
