Parag Warudkar wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2007 4:38 PM, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Parag Warudkar wrote:
>>> On 12/19/07, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> why would this patch reduce wakeups even more than round_jiffies()? Does it
>> make
>> our ~2 second update interval not reliable?
On Dec 19, 2007 4:38 PM, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Parag Warudkar wrote:
> > On 12/19/07, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> why would this patch reduce wakeups even more than round_jiffies()? Does it
> make
> our ~2 second update interval not reliable? can you quantify "shows i
Parag Warudkar wrote:
> On 12/19/07, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> I can't possibly see any benefit from this other than that you just add up
>> to a
>> whole second to the initialization cycle, which is bad.
>>
> Well, Ok but it can't be bad - I've been using this patch some
On 12/19/07, Kok, Auke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I can't possibly see any benefit from this other than that you just add up to
> a
> whole second to the initialization cycle, which is bad.
>
Well, Ok but it can't be bad - I've been using this patch sometime and
haven't seen any problem
Parag Warudkar wrote:
>
> Use deferrable timer for watchdog. Reduces wakeups from idle per second.
no, we don't want this. We already allow the re-scheduling of the watchdog to be
round_jiffies() modified so that it coincides with other interrupts.
but at load time we don't want the timer to be
Use deferrable timer for watchdog. Reduces wakeups from idle per second.
Signed-off-by: Parag Warudkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.6/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c2007-12-07 10:04:39.0
-0500
+++ linux-2.6-work/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c 2007-12-18
20:38:38.0
