From: mark gross <markgross@thegnar.org>
To: "Pihet-XID, Jean" <j-pihet@ti.com>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>,
markgross <markgross@thegnar.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CPU C-state breakage with PM Qos change
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 19:50:57 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120205035057.GA4948@gs62> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAN5iSWo-n7OER4i1tPoeGBhY_RY-nX=7n4B3mFv1f0JK074bhQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 03:04:43PM +0100, Pihet-XID, Jean wrote:
> Looping in linux-pm
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com> wrote:
> > Looks like change "PM QoS: Move and rename the implementation files"
> > made pm_qos depend on CONFIG_PM which depends on
> > PM_SLEEP || PM_RUNTIME
> >
> > That breaks CPU C-states with kernels not having these CONFIGs, causing CPUs
> > to spend time in Polling loop idle instead of going into deep C-states,
> > consuming way way more power. This is with either acpi idle or intel idle
> > enabled.
> >
> > Either CONFIG_PM should be enabled with any pm_qos users or
> > the !CONFIG_PM pm_qos_request() should return sane defaults not to break
> > the existing users. Here's is the patch for the latter option.
> I think the real question is whether PM QoS should be functional in
> all cases (as is ACPI) or whether only if certain options are set
> (CONFIG_PM).
> In the current code if CONFIG_PM is not enabled, a dummy PM QoS API is
> provided as function stubs in order for the build to succeed.
>
> Rafael, Mark,
> What do you think? Should PM QoS be enabled in all cases? Are there
> any known dependencies with CONFIG_PM?
Yes I do think pm_qos interfaces should be enabled all the time and be
independent of CONFIG_PM. Also, I still am not a fan of the renaming
patch but, as the argument for and against renaming cannot be based on
quantifiable things I've chosen not to let it bother me.
I think Venki's change is a band aid and we should fix it right by not
having a dependency on config_pm for the interface to behave.
I'll take a look at why there is now a dependency before I have more to
say.
--mark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-05 3:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1328227065-22045-1-git-send-email-venki@google.com>
[not found] ` <1328228079-20716-1-git-send-email-venki@google.com>
2012-02-03 14:04 ` [PATCH] CPU C-state breakage with PM Qos change Pihet-XID, Jean
2012-02-03 20:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-02-05 3:50 ` mark gross [this message]
2012-02-05 11:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-02-06 10:18 ` Jean Pihet
2012-02-06 16:42 ` Jean Pihet
2012-02-06 20:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-02-07 8:39 ` Jean Pihet
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=20120205035057.GA4948@gs62 \
--to=markgross@thegnar.org \
--cc=j-pihet@ti.com \
--cc=khilman@ti.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=venki@google.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).