From: "Bjørn Mork" <bjorn@mork.no>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
"linux-pm\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: Allow to inactivate devices during system suspend
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:29:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87li0q9fna.fsf@nemi.mork.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFrQfwOQsOCB1QFo4GWeX303AEWnanE61svy9UUJpNBUiw@mail.gmail.com> (Ulf Hansson's message of "Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:44:48 +0100")
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> writes:
> I think it is kind of strange to give provision to userspace to
> control a "request based" power management feature in the kernel. Me
> personally can't think of any good use case, but I comes from the
> embedded/ARM world so I might not have the full picture.
Because resuming a device inevitably adds latency, and that only
userspace can decide the latency vs power policy for any given device,
system and user?
There are also other reasons, mostly related to device bugs. But the
above is the most important in my view. Without that control knob I
don't think I would have enabled runtime PM in any network driver while
the netif is running. The additional latency is noticable.
Anyway, this is a pointless discussion. The power/control ABI is in use
so many places that it cannot be changed. I'd suggest googling "break
userspace" before even suggesting anything like that again.
Bjørn
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Bjørn Mork" <bjorn@mork.no>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Linux PCI <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: Allow to inactivate devices during system suspend
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:29:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87li0q9fna.fsf@nemi.mork.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFrQfwOQsOCB1QFo4GWeX303AEWnanE61svy9UUJpNBUiw@mail.gmail.com> (Ulf Hansson's message of "Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:44:48 +0100")
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> writes:
> I think it is kind of strange to give provision to userspace to
> control a "request based" power management feature in the kernel. Me
> personally can't think of any good use case, but I comes from the
> embedded/ARM world so I might not have the full picture.
Because resuming a device inevitably adds latency, and that only
userspace can decide the latency vs power policy for any given device,
system and user?
There are also other reasons, mostly related to device bugs. But the
above is the most important in my view. Without that control knob I
don't think I would have enabled runtime PM in any network driver while
the netif is running. The additional latency is noticable.
Anyway, this is a pointless discussion. The power/control ABI is in use
so many places that it cannot be changed. I'd suggest googling "break
userspace" before even suggesting anything like that again.
Bjørn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-15 9:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-13 16:29 [RFC PATCH] PM / Runtime: Allow to inactivate devices during system suspend Ulf Hansson
2013-11-13 19:16 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-13 19:16 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-13 22:21 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-11-14 13:21 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-14 15:59 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-14 15:59 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-14 16:40 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-14 17:57 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-14 17:57 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-15 8:44 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-15 9:29 ` Bjørn Mork [this message]
2013-11-15 9:29 ` Bjørn Mork
2013-11-15 10:34 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-15 15:22 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-15 15:22 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-18 13:27 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-18 15:17 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-18 15:17 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-19 12:21 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-19 13:21 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-11-19 15:35 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-19 15:35 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-19 16:45 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-11-19 16:45 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-11-19 18:03 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-19 18:03 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-19 18:43 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-11-19 18:43 ` Kevin Hilman
2013-11-21 9:00 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-21 9:00 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-21 15:54 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-21 15:54 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-22 8:19 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-22 12:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-11-20 10:52 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-20 11:23 ` Pavel Machek
2013-11-20 11:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-11-20 12:43 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-20 16:58 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-20 16:58 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-20 19:55 ` Pavel Machek
2013-11-20 16:55 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-20 16:55 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-13 22:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-11-14 14:32 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-14 14:32 ` Ulf Hansson
2013-11-14 15:55 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-14 15:55 ` Alan Stern
2013-11-21 9:11 ` Ulf Hansson
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=87li0q9fna.fsf@nemi.mork.no \
--to=bjorn@mork.no \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=khilman@linaro.org \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
/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.