Madhavan Venkataraman wrote: > Bill Holler wrote: >> Madhavan Venkataraman wrote: >> >>> Liu, Jiang wrote: >>> >>>> Maybe Aubrey means whether could we aggregate non-realtime timer to >>>> reduce CPU wakeups. For example, 100 non-realtime timers with >>>> 1-second interval may distribute as one trigger per 10ms, so could we >>>> aggregate these timers, say at the end of each second? I think >>>> delaying non-realtime timer is acceptable to improve power efficiency. >>>> >>>> >>> You cannot change the behavior of callouts for the sake >>> of power efficiency. It will mean that we introduce a delay >>> in each of the aggregated timers. This could screw up >>> drivers, TCP timers, etc. The maximum we can do is >>> to make sure that callouts are event driven as opposed >>> to polled (every tick) so that work is done by a CPU >>> only when there is a need. >>> >> >> Today callouts are dispatched from the clock tick? >> This effectively "batches" callouts to 10 ms intervals >> or whatever the clock interval is without problems.... >> > The same tick-level granularity is maintained in the current > implementation although there is no per-tick polling. > > However, batching at arbitrary granularities like > one-second granularity is not done. Like I mentioned > before, the new interfaces can be used to do it on > a per-client basis.
My emails were delayed this morning. My question crossed with your earlier email which answered my question. :-) Thank you, Bill > Madhavan > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > tesla-dev mailing list > tesla-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/tesla-dev >
