On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Alan Jenkins wrote:
> So if I want to find out why ehci causes more wakeups on an idle system
> than uhci, I need to break down the ehci_watchdog timer into its
> component uses.
One other thing I forgot to mention. As you know, ehci-hcd's extra
interrupts tell the driver i
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Alan Jenkins wrote:
> > One other thing: EHCI transfers data 40 times faster than UHCI. All
> > else being equal, you would be justified in expecting it to generate 40
> > times as many interrupts per second. The fact that it doesn't
> > indicates something -- perhaps that th
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Alan Jenkins wrote:
> >>> Using UHCI instead of EHCI saves ~5 wakeup/s:
> >>>
> >>> With ehci_hcd loaded (and not uhci_hcd):
> >>> 31.1% ( 10.0) : ehci_work (ehci_watchdog)
> >>> 30.4% ( 9.8): ehci_hcd:usb5
> >>>
> >
> > Pardon me, but can somebody expl
Alan Stern wrote:
>>> I'm running a 2.6.23-rc9-hrt1 kernel
>>> (-rc8-hrt1 patch applied cleanly to -rc9).
>>>
>>> Is this expected?
>>>
>
> It's hard to be precise. Here's a partial analysis:
>
> The interrupts for each driver fall into two categories. With uhci-hcd
> they are labelled i
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 05:25:37PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Sarah Sharp wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:29:49PM +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote:
> > > My internet arrives via a USB 2.0 wireless adaptor.
> > > Using UHCI instead of EHCI saves ~5 wakeup/s:
> > >
> > > With e
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:29:49PM +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote:
> > My internet arrives via a USB 2.0 wireless adaptor.
> > Using UHCI instead of EHCI saves ~5 wakeup/s:
> >
> > With ehci_hcd loaded (and not uhci_hcd):
> > 31.1% ( 10.0) : ehci_work (e
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:29:49PM +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote:
> My internet arrives via a USB 2.0 wireless adaptor.
> Using UHCI instead of EHCI saves ~5 wakeup/s:
>
> With ehci_hcd loaded (and not uhci_hcd):
> 31.1% ( 10.0) : ehci_work (ehci_watchdog)
> 30.4% ( 9.8): ehci_hcd:us
