From: mark gross <markgross@thegnar.org>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>
Cc: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>,
mark gross <markgross@thegnar.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pm_qos: Add system bus performance parameter
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:05:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100902140546.GA2818@gvim.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87hbigqg8d.fsf@deeprootsystems.com>
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 07:31:46AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> writes:
>
> > Some drivers/devices might need some minimum system bus performance to
> > provide acceptable service. Provide a PM QoS parameter to send these requests
> > to.
> >
> > The new parameter is named "system bus performance" since it is generic enough
> > for the unit of the request to be frequency, bandwidth or something else that
> > might be appropriate. It's up to each implementation of the QoS provider to
> > define what the unit of the request would be.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
>
> With this current design, only one system-wide bus would be managed.
> What if a platform has more than one independently scalable bus?
>
> I think the only scalable way to handle this kind of thing is to have
> per-device QoS constraints that can then be combined/aggregated by parent
> devices/busses.
>
> At LPC this year, I've proposed per-device QoS constraints[1] as a topic
> for the PM mini-conf. I hope some folks from the MSM camp can be there
> for these discussions.
>
> Kevin
>
> [1] http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2010/ocw/proposals/819
I thought a pm_qos like thing per bus would be a patch or you where
going to put up to the driver model. ;)
The current pm_qos would stick around for higher level pm_qos things.
So making the system bus and changing to a summation aggregation would
be temporary thing.
Or are you you saying we shouldn't put system_bus into pm_qos at all and
instead we should put effort into adding it to the driver model for
buses?
If so, then I don't know what to do next, I could prototype both I
suppose (well implement the sum+system_bus in pm_qos as an RFC patch,
and take a stab at the driver model thing. )
--mark
> > ---
> > kernel/pm_qos_params.c | 9 +++++++++
> > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/pm_qos_params.c b/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> > index 996a4de..1a44a67 100644
> > --- a/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> > +++ b/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> > @@ -93,12 +93,21 @@ static struct pm_qos_object network_throughput_pm_qos = {
> > .type = PM_QOS_MAX,
> > };
> >
> > +static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(system_bus_performance_notifier);
> > +static struct pm_qos_object system_bus_performance_pm_qos = {
> > + .requests = PLIST_HEAD_INIT(system_bus_performance_pm_qos.requests, pm_qos_lock),
> > + .notifiers = &system_bus_performance_notifier,
> > + .name = "system_bus_performance",
> > + .default_value = 0,
> > + .type = PM_QOS_MAX,
> > +};
> >
> > static struct pm_qos_object *pm_qos_array[] = {
> > &null_pm_qos,
> > &cpu_dma_pm_qos,
> > &network_lat_pm_qos,
> > &network_throughput_pm_qos
> > + &system_bus_performance_pm_qos
> > };
> >
> > static ssize_t pm_qos_power_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *buf,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-02 14:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-27 4:13 Add system bus performance parameter Saravana Kannan
2010-08-27 4:13 ` [PATCH] pm_qos: " Saravana Kannan
2010-08-27 6:41 ` mark gross
2010-08-27 8:10 ` skannan
2010-08-27 10:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-28 2:05 ` mark gross
2010-08-28 2:55 ` Saravana Kannan
2010-08-28 22:52 ` mark gross
2010-08-30 18:56 ` Kevin Hilman
2010-08-31 18:40 ` mark gross
2010-08-31 22:38 ` Saravana Kannan
2010-09-01 14:28 ` mark gross
2010-09-02 3:37 ` Saravana Kannan
2010-09-02 14:09 ` mark gross
2010-09-04 2:04 ` Saravana Kannan
2010-09-17 20:32 ` Saravana Kannan
2010-08-27 14:31 ` Kevin Hilman
2010-08-27 18:33 ` Bryan Huntsman
2010-08-28 1:55 ` mark gross
2010-08-28 2:09 ` mark gross
2010-08-28 23:05 ` mark gross
2010-09-02 14:05 ` mark gross [this message]
2010-09-02 20:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-09-07 5:42 ` mark gross
2010-09-07 21:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-08-27 4:19 ` Saravana Kannan
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=20100902140546.GA2818@gvim.org \
--to=markgross@thegnar.org \
--cc=James.Bottomley@suse.de \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=khilman@deeprootsystems.com \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=skannan@codeaurora.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).