From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@newoldbits.com>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, markgross@thegnar.org,
broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, Jean Pihet <j-pihet@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] PM: QoS: extend the in-kernel API with per-device latency constraints
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 23:02:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201108022302.59637.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAORVsuVY63VYGEB7CM50UzJS3wLt+jZn5U6S9X+277GB_ETV1g@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Tuesday, August 02, 2011, Jean Pihet wrote:
...
> I will keep pm_qos_class if the rename brings in some confusion. The
> intention was to simplify the names of the fields in structs with
> explicit names.
Please keep it for now. You can rename it later if there's a clear
benefit, but I'm not sure still.
> >
> >> + struct device *dev;
> >> };
> >>
> >> -void pm_qos_add_request(struct pm_qos_request_list *l, int pm_qos_class, s32 value);
> >> -void pm_qos_update_request(struct pm_qos_request_list *pm_qos_req,
> >> - s32 new_value);
> >> -void pm_qos_remove_request(struct pm_qos_request_list *pm_qos_req);
> >> +struct pm_qos_parameters {
> >> + int class;
> >> + struct device *dev;
> >> + s32 value;
> >> +};
> >
> > What exactly is the "dev" member needed for?
> This is the target device that is passed as parameter to the API. It
> is used for constraints of the devices latency class.
Well, I don't like this change.
In fact, I'd prefer it if the old interface were kept unmodified.
> ...
> >> +static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(dev_lat_notifier);
> >> +static struct pm_qos_object dev_pm_qos = {
> >> + .requests = PLIST_HEAD_INIT(dev_pm_qos.requests, pm_qos_lock),
> >> + .notifiers = &dev_lat_notifier,
> >> + .name = "dev_latency",
> >> + .target_value = PM_QOS_DEV_LAT_DEFAULT_VALUE,
> >> + .default_value = PM_QOS_DEV_LAT_DEFAULT_VALUE,
> >> + .type = PM_QOS_MIN,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >
> > You seem to be confusing things here. Since devices will have their own lists
> > of requests now (as per the previous patch), the .requests member above is not
> > necessary. Moreover, it seems to be used incorrectly below.
> The idea was to split the patches as requested previously: first the
> API changes (this very patch [03/13]) and then the actual
> implementation ([04/13]). Is this correct?
The idea is right in general, but so to speak it didn't work out too well.
The most important change is the introduction of struct pm_qos_constraints,
which doesn't need any preparation IMO. I'd do this possibly early in the
series and I'd do it like this:
+struct pm_qos_constraints {
+ struct plist_head list;
+ s32 target_value;
+ s32 default_value;
+ struct blocking_notifier_head *notifiers;
+};
(more on the notifiers later). Please note the lack of the type field.
At the same time I'd redefine struct pm_qos_object in the following way:
struct pm_qos_object {
- struct plist_head requests;
+ struct pm_qos_constraints *constraints;
- struct blocking_notifier_head *notifiers;
struct miscdevice pm_qos_power_miscdev;
char *name;
- s32 target_value; /* Do not change to 64 bit */
- s32 default_value;
enum pm_qos_type type;
};
so for the _existing_ PM QoS classes you can simply use
constraints->list instead of requests, constraints->target_value
instead of target_value, constraints->defaul_value instead of default_value
and constraints->notifiers instead of notifiers.
I wouldn't introduce a "global" PM QoS class for devices.
That should be a relatively simple patch that doesn't change the
existing interface and functionality.
The next patch would be to modify update_target() so that it takes
a pointer to struct pm_qos_constraints instead of the pointers to
struct pm_qos_object and struct plist_node (possibly also to take
an "operation" argument instead of the "del" one). All it needs is
in struct pm_qos_constraints, so that should be simple too.
The modified update_target() should return a value indicating
whether or not prev_value was different from curr_value, so that
the device PM QoS functions (introduced by the next patch) can use it
to trigger system-wide notifications.
The next patch would introduce the per-device PM QoS by (1) adding
a struct pm_qos_constraints _pointer_ to struct dev_pm_info (assuming
that at least _some_ devices won't use PM QoS) and (2) adding
dev_pm_qos_add/update/remove_request() in drivers/base/power/qos.c,
all of them using the modified update_target().
Now if system-wide notifier chain for devices is necessary, you can
simply define it as a static variable in drivers/base/power/qos.c
without actually adding any "PM QoS object" for this purpose. Now,
you can use the value returned by the modified update_target() to
decide whether or not to run notifiers from dev_pm_qos_*_request().
Does it make sense to you?
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-02 21:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-28 8:30 [RFC/PATCH v3 00/13] PM QoS: add a per-device latency constraints class jean.pihet
2011-07-28 8:30 ` [PATCH 01/13] PM: QoS: rename pm_qos_params files to pm_qos jean.pihet
2011-07-29 21:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-08-02 9:31 ` Jean Pihet
2011-08-02 9:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-07-28 8:30 ` [PATCH 02/13] PM: add a per-device wake-up latency constraints plist jean.pihet
2011-07-29 21:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-07-28 8:30 ` [PATCH 03/13] PM: QoS: extend the in-kernel API with per-device latency constraints jean.pihet
2011-07-29 22:55 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-08-02 9:41 ` Jean Pihet
2011-08-02 21:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2011-08-02 18:01 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-07-28 8:30 ` [PATCH 04/13] PM: QoS: implement the " jean.pihet
2011-07-30 22:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-08-02 10:05 ` Jean Pihet
2011-08-02 21:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-07-28 8:30 ` [PATCH 05/13] PM: QoS: support the dynamic insertion and removal of devices jean.pihet
2011-07-30 22:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-08-02 10:07 ` Jean Pihet
2011-07-28 8:30 ` [PATCH 06/13] OMAP PM: create a PM layer plugin for per-device constraints jean.pihet
2011-07-28 8:30 ` [PATCH 07/13] OMAP PM: early init of the pwrdms states jean.pihet
2011-07-29 8:08 ` Todd Poynor
2011-07-29 8:50 ` Jean Pihet
2011-08-02 8:57 ` Jean Pihet
2011-08-11 15:12 ` Jean Pihet
2011-07-28 8:30 ` [PATCH 08/13] OMAP2+: powerdomain: control power domains next state jean.pihet
2011-07-29 7:59 ` Todd Poynor
2011-07-29 8:47 ` Jean Pihet
2011-07-29 18:00 ` Todd Poynor
2011-08-11 15:09 ` Jean Pihet
2011-07-28 8:30 ` [PATCH 09/13] OMAP3: powerdomain data: add wake-up latency figures jean.pihet
2011-07-28 8:30 ` [PATCH 10/13] OMAP4: " jean.pihet
2011-07-28 8:30 ` [PATCH 11/13] OMAP2+: omap_hwmod: manage the wake-up latency constraints jean.pihet
2011-07-28 8:30 ` [PATCH 12/13] OMAP: PM CONSTRAINTS: implement the devices " jean.pihet
2011-07-28 8:30 ` [PATCH 13/13] OMAP2+: cpuidle only influences the MPU state jean.pihet
2011-07-28 13:14 ` [RFC/PATCH v3 00/13] PM QoS: add a per-device latency constraints class mark gross
2011-07-29 8:37 ` Jean Pihet
2011-07-29 14:24 ` mark gross
2011-07-29 21:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-07-31 17:38 ` [linux-pm] " mark gross
2011-07-29 21:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=201108022302.59637.rjw@sisk.pl \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=j-pihet@ti.com \
--cc=jean.pihet@newoldbits.com \
--cc=khilman@ti.com \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
--cc=markgross@thegnar.org \
--cc=paul@pwsan.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 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).