Yep. Georg already replied (to linux-usb@suse.com):
<quote>
The plan is to disable the interrupt TD when there are no unlinks nor
URBs with timeout pending. The URB-timeout check was moved into the uhci
interrupt, since that simplifies the locking.
</quote>
~Randy
___________________________________________________
|Randy Dunlap Intel Corp., DAL Sr. SW Engr.|
|randy.dunlap.at.intel.com 503-696-2055|
|NOTE: Any views presented here are mine alone |
|and may not represent the views of my employer. |
|_________________________________________________|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Hahn [mailto:hahn@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca]
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 3:11 PM
> To: Dunlap, Randy
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu; 'linux-usb@suse.com'
> Subject: RE: Crazy USB Interrupts.
>
>
> > The usb-uhci driver uses a lazy (delayed) TD
> > cleanup method that is based on USB interrupts.
>
> dandy. so why are the interrupts continuing at HIGH RATE
> when USB is *completely*idle*?
>
> > It's author/maintainer (Georg Acher) has been
> > told about this behavior already. I'm not sure
> > what his plans are.
>
> this needs to be fixed. I just measured the overhead of this
> at 1-2% on my dual celeron/550. lots of people expect Linux to
> run reasonably on machines with 1/10 this much power; I expect
> this mis-feature costs 10-20% on a P5/166.
>
> regards, mark hahn.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 24 2000 - 19:13:15 EST