Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:35:32 -0700 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/3] fastboot: Create a "asynchronous" initlevel |
| |
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:24:26 -0700 Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 22:20 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > > btw it's also about learning to crawl before learning to walk, > > before learning to run. THis stuff is tricky and there are many > > hidden problems; I rather start SIMPLE and understandably right, I > > don't want to go "full parallel" now (or maybe ever, no idea, we > > need to learn from this step first). Btw: I suspect the biggest > > gain comes from the first step or two.. after that you soon get > > diminishing returns... > > > > Ok .. I'm not trying to rush you .. With that said, the increased > number of threads seems like a natural direction to take.. I would > assume the returns would diminish depending on the number of threads > per the hardware.. For instance , your addition of one thread might > even harm the boot time on some single core embedded systems ..
well it still improves the cases where msleep() happens... even on single core. (fwiw the test machine I reported numbers from is single core, albeit with hyperthreading)
-- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org
| |