Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/3] PM: QoS: Introduce a system-wakeup QoS limit

[Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>]

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 2:33 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> Some platforms and devices supports multiple low-power-states than can be
>> used for system-wide suspend. Today these states are selected on per
>> subsystem basis and in most cases it's the deepest possible state that
>> becomes selected.
>>
>> For some use-cases this is a problem as it isn't suitable or even breaks
>> the system-wakeup latency constraint, when we decide to enter these deeper
>> states during system-wide suspend.
>>
>> Therefore, let's introduce an interface for user-space, allowing us to
>> specify the system-wakeup QoS limit. Subsequent changes will start taking
>> into account the QoS limit.
>
> Well, this is not really a system-wakeup limit, but a CPU idle state
> latency limit for states entered in the last step of suspend-to-idle.
>
> It looks like the problem is that the existing CPU latency QoS is not
> taken into account by suspend-to-idle, so instead of adding an
> entirely new interface to overcome this, would it make sense to add an
> ioctl() to the existing one that would allow the user of it to
> indicate that the given request should also be respected by
> suspend-to-idle?
>
> There are two basic reasons why I think so:
> (1) The requests that you want to be respected by suspend-to-idle
> should also be respected by the regular "runtime" idle, or at least I
> don't see a reason why it wouldn't be the case.
> (2) The new interface introduced by this patch basically duplicates
> the existing one.

I also think that just using the existing /dev/cpu_dma_latency is the
right approach here, and simply teaching s2idle to respect this value.

I'm curious about the need for a new ioctl() though.  Under what
conditions do you want normal/runtime CPUidle to respect this value and
s2idle to not respect this value?

Kevin