lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] pm_qos: Add system bus performance parameter
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:13:23PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> 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>
> ---
> 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,
> --
> 1.7.1.1
> ---

nack.

Change the name to system_bus_throughput_pm_qos assuming KBS units and
I'll ok it. It needs to be portable and without units I think drivers
will start using magic numbers that will break when you go from a
devices with 16 to 32 bus with the same clock.

We had an email thread about this last year
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/31/143
I don't recall solution ever coming out of it. I think you guys didn't
like the idea of using units. Further I did post a patch adding
something like using units. Although I looks like I botch the post the
linux-pm as I can't seem to find it in the linux-pm archives :(
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/22/213

Would you be ok with using throughput instead of a unit less performance
magic number?


--mark




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-27 08:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site