lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch update] Re: [linux-pm] Run-time PM idea (was: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] PM: Rearrange core suspend code)
    On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote:

    > Am Donnerstag, 11. Juni 2009 17:22:06 schrieb Alan Stern:
    > > > > Okay, I'll agree to that.  It should be made clear that a device which
    > > > > is "suspended" according to this definition is not necessarily in a
    > > > > low-power state.  For example, before powering down the link to a disk
    > > > > drive you might want the drive's suspend method to flush the drive's
    > > > > cache, but it wouldn't have to spin the drive down.
    > > >
    > > > This precludes handling busses that have low power states that are
    > > > left automatically. If such links are stacked the management of
    > > > acceptable latencies cannot be left to the busses.
    > > > An actual example are the link states of USB 3.0
    > >
    > > I don't understand.  Can you explain more fully?
    >
    > I am talking about the U1 and U2 feature of USB 3.0.
    >
    > Or abstractly any power saving state that does autoresume in hardware.
    > In these cases you know that you can enter a powersaving state that
    > will add X latency.
    >
    > In terms of user space API we'll probably add a way for user space
    > to specify how much latency may be added for power management's sake.
    > If busses are stacked the "latency budget" has to be handled at core level.
    > If furthermore states that allow IO but with additional latency are ignored,
    > the budget will be calculated wrongly.

    Okay, fine. What does this have to do with Rafael's work? Why does
    setting the status to RPM_SUSPENDED even when a device is not in a
    low-power state preclude handling buses that automatically change their
    power state?

    I don't see any connection between Rafael's work and managing
    latencies, beyond the obvious fact that a device will have a higher
    latency when it is suspended than when it isn't.

    Alan Stern

    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-06-11 20:39    [W:0.025 / U:0.400 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site