linux-arm-msm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: markgross@thegnar.org
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>,
	Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>,
	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 22:09:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201009022209.20354.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100902140546.GA2818@gvim.org>

On Thursday, September 02, 2010, mark gross wrote:
> 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?

Hmm, well, what's system_bus?

Rafael

  reply	other threads:[~2010-09-02 20:10 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
2010-09-02 20:09       ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
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=201009022209.20354.rjw@sisk.pl \
    --to=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --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=markgross@thegnar.org \
    --cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
    --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).