From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
To: melwyn lobo <linux.melwyn@gmail.com>
Cc: "Chalhoub, Nicole" <n-chalhoub@ti.com>,
Deepthi Dharwar <deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CPUIdle: Reevaluate C-states under CPU load to favor deeper C-states
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:49:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878viv17t2.fsf@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHSGOuuexpCDNoP1G1Gyge2DCep0rsPmUwrVyZFDQ1_tH+Du7Q@mail.gmail.com> (melwyn lobo's message of "Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:19:02 +0530")
melwyn lobo <linux.melwyn@gmail.com> writes:
> Hey Kevin,
> I would like to try out this patch in my platform see the benefits
> that you are reporting. But there is one issue in this patch. You have
> not initialized "hrtimer_timeout" variable.
> This will always be 0 right ?.
Correct.
The generic code defaults to zero so that the default behavior with this
patch is unchanged from previous behavior. In order to use this
feature, your platform-specific code which creates your C-states sets
the per-C-state timer values.
Kevin
> Thanks,
> -M
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Chalhoub, Nicole <n-chalhoub@ti.com> wrote:
>> Hi Deepthi,
>>
>>>
>> Texas Instruments France SA, 821 Avenue Jack Kilby, 06270 Villeneuve Loubet. 036 420 040 R.C.S Antibes. Capital de EUR 753.920
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Deepthi Dharwar [mailto:deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 12:13 PM
>>> To: Hilman, Kevin
>>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Arjan van de Ven; linux-arm-
>>> kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-
>>> pm@lists.linux-foundation.org; Chalhoub, Nicole
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] CPUIdle: Reevaluate C-states under CPU load to favor
>>> deeper C-states
>>
>> [...]
>>> By setting timers when we enter non-deepest C-state possible, such that
>>> when it fires we
>>> can re-evaluate and try moving into deeper and deeper C-states enhancing
>>> the
>>> power savings is a good feature to have.
>>>
>>> Looking at the current implementation, is it possible to have it as
>>> configurable option
>>> where one can enable/disable this functionality through the backhand
>>> driver ?
>>
>> The timeout values of the c state timers are set in the backhand driver.
>> By setting the timeout to 0 the timers will not fire so you'll not have this functionality enabled
>>
>>> Also I am thinking, instead of having them in governor
>>> wouldnt it be a good idea to have it implemented in
>>> the backhand driver itself ?
>>> --Deepthi
>>
>>
>> In fact each C-state had its own configurable timer, so it is a parameter characterizing a C-state as it is for the exit_latency and target_residency parameters.
>> And we wanted the timer to fire only when we do not go in deep Cstate due to a high load. This decision is made in the CPU idle governor. So the functionality should be seen from the governor..
>>
>> Thanks and Regards
>> Nicole
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] CPUIdle: Reevaluate C-states under CPU load to favor deeper C-states
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:49:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878viv17t2.fsf@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHSGOuuexpCDNoP1G1Gyge2DCep0rsPmUwrVyZFDQ1_tH+Du7Q@mail.gmail.com> (melwyn lobo's message of "Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:19:02 +0530")
melwyn lobo <linux.melwyn@gmail.com> writes:
> Hey Kevin,
> I would like to try out this patch in my platform see the benefits
> that you are reporting. But there is one issue in this patch. You have
> not initialized "hrtimer_timeout" variable.
> This will always be 0 right ?.
Correct.
The generic code defaults to zero so that the default behavior with this
patch is unchanged from previous behavior. In order to use this
feature, your platform-specific code which creates your C-states sets
the per-C-state timer values.
Kevin
> Thanks,
> -M
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Chalhoub, Nicole <n-chalhoub@ti.com> wrote:
>> Hi Deepthi,
>>
>>>
>> Texas Instruments France SA, 821 Avenue Jack Kilby, 06270 Villeneuve Loubet. 036 420 040 R.C.S Antibes. Capital de EUR 753.920
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Deepthi Dharwar [mailto:deepthi at linux.vnet.ibm.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 12:13 PM
>>> To: Hilman, Kevin
>>> Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; Arjan van de Ven; linux-arm-
>>> kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-
>>> pm at lists.linux-foundation.org; Chalhoub, Nicole
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] CPUIdle: Reevaluate C-states under CPU load to favor
>>> deeper C-states
>>
>> [...]
>>> By setting timers when we enter non-deepest C-state possible, such that
>>> when it fires we
>>> can re-evaluate and try moving into deeper and deeper C-states enhancing
>>> the
>>> power savings is a good feature to have.
>>>
>>> Looking at the current implementation, is it possible to have it as
>>> configurable option
>>> where one can enable/disable this functionality through the backhand
>>> driver ?
>>
>> The timeout values of the c state timers are set in the backhand driver.
>> By setting the timeout to 0 the timers will not fire so you'll not have this functionality enabled
>>
>>> Also I am thinking, instead of having them in governor
>>> wouldnt it be a good idea to have it implemented in
>>> the backhand driver itself ?
>>> --Deepthi
>>
>>
>> In fact each C-state had its own configurable timer, so it is a parameter characterizing a C-state as it is for the exit_latency and target_residency parameters.
>> And we wanted the timer to fire only when we do not go in deep Cstate due to a high load. This decision is made in the CPU idle governor. So the functionality should be seen from the governor..
>>
>> Thanks and Regards
>> Nicole
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at ?http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at ?http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
To: melwyn lobo <linux.melwyn@gmail.com>
Cc: "Chalhoub\, Nicole" <n-chalhoub@ti.com>,
Deepthi Dharwar <deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm\@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-omap\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel\@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CPUIdle: Reevaluate C-states under CPU load to favor deeper C-states
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:49:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878viv17t2.fsf@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHSGOuuexpCDNoP1G1Gyge2DCep0rsPmUwrVyZFDQ1_tH+Du7Q@mail.gmail.com> (melwyn lobo's message of "Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:19:02 +0530")
melwyn lobo <linux.melwyn@gmail.com> writes:
> Hey Kevin,
> I would like to try out this patch in my platform see the benefits
> that you are reporting. But there is one issue in this patch. You have
> not initialized "hrtimer_timeout" variable.
> This will always be 0 right ?.
Correct.
The generic code defaults to zero so that the default behavior with this
patch is unchanged from previous behavior. In order to use this
feature, your platform-specific code which creates your C-states sets
the per-C-state timer values.
Kevin
> Thanks,
> -M
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Chalhoub, Nicole <n-chalhoub@ti.com> wrote:
>> Hi Deepthi,
>>
>>>
>> Texas Instruments France SA, 821 Avenue Jack Kilby, 06270 Villeneuve Loubet. 036 420 040 R.C.S Antibes. Capital de EUR 753.920
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Deepthi Dharwar [mailto:deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 12:13 PM
>>> To: Hilman, Kevin
>>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Arjan van de Ven; linux-arm-
>>> kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-
>>> pm@lists.linux-foundation.org; Chalhoub, Nicole
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] CPUIdle: Reevaluate C-states under CPU load to favor
>>> deeper C-states
>>
>> [...]
>>> By setting timers when we enter non-deepest C-state possible, such that
>>> when it fires we
>>> can re-evaluate and try moving into deeper and deeper C-states enhancing
>>> the
>>> power savings is a good feature to have.
>>>
>>> Looking at the current implementation, is it possible to have it as
>>> configurable option
>>> where one can enable/disable this functionality through the backhand
>>> driver ?
>>
>> The timeout values of the c state timers are set in the backhand driver.
>> By setting the timeout to 0 the timers will not fire so you'll not have this functionality enabled
>>
>>> Also I am thinking, instead of having them in governor
>>> wouldnt it be a good idea to have it implemented in
>>> the backhand driver itself ?
>>> --Deepthi
>>
>>
>> In fact each C-state had its own configurable timer, so it is a parameter characterizing a C-state as it is for the exit_latency and target_residency parameters.
>> And we wanted the timer to fire only when we do not go in deep Cstate due to a high load. This decision is made in the CPU idle governor. So the functionality should be seen from the governor..
>>
>> Thanks and Regards
>> Nicole
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-20 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-19 23:35 [PATCH] CPUIdle: Reevaluate C-states under CPU load to favor deeper C-states Kevin Hilman
2011-09-19 23:35 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-09-19 23:35 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-10-19 13:11 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-10-19 13:11 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-11-04 21:46 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-11-04 21:46 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-11-04 21:46 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-11-04 21:46 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-11-09 11:13 ` Deepthi Dharwar
2011-11-09 11:13 ` Deepthi Dharwar
2011-11-09 11:13 ` Deepthi Dharwar
2011-11-09 18:06 ` Chalhoub, Nicole
2011-11-09 18:06 ` Chalhoub, Nicole
2012-03-20 14:49 ` melwyn lobo
2012-03-20 14:49 ` melwyn lobo
2012-03-20 17:49 ` Kevin Hilman [this message]
2012-03-20 17:49 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-03-20 17:49 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-11-09 18:06 ` Chalhoub, Nicole
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=878viv17t2.fsf@ti.com \
--to=khilman@ti.com \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux.melwyn@gmail.com \
--cc=n-chalhoub@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.