lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] PM / QoS: add pm_qos_update_request_timeout API
    On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:41:15AM +0900, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
    > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 1:35 AM, mark gross <markgross@thegnar.org> wrote:
    > > I apologize for the lat replay and admit that I was probably wrong to
    > > oppose the idea of time out pm_qos requests.  (last week we bumped into
    > > a need for them and now I get it.)
    > >
    > >
    > > On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 02:06:18PM +0900, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
    > >> The new API, pm_qos_update_request_timeout() is to provide a timeout
    > >> with pm_qos_update_request.
    > >>
    > >> For example, pm_qos_update_request_timeout(req, 100, 1000), means that
    > >> QoS request on req with value 100 will be active for 1000 jiffies.
    > >> After 1000 jiffies, the QoS request thru req is rolled back to the
    > >> request status when pm_qos_update_request_timeout() was called. If there
    > >> were another pm_qos_update_request(req, x) during the 1000 jiffies, this
    > >> new request with value x will override as this is another request on the
    > >> same req handle. A new request on the same req handle will always
    > >> override the previous request whether it is the conventional request or
    > >> it is the new timeout request.
    > >>
    > >> Signed-off-by: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>
    > >> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
    > []
    > >> @@ -77,6 +79,8 @@ void pm_qos_add_request(struct pm_qos_request *req, int pm_qos_class,
    > >>                       s32 value);
    > >>  void pm_qos_update_request(struct pm_qos_request *req,
    > >>                          s32 new_value);
    > >> +void pm_qos_update_request_timeout(struct pm_qos_request *req,
    > >> +                                s32 new_value, unsigned long timeout_ms);
    > > is ms the right units?  could we ever need us?
    > >
    >
    > Because jiffies are used for scheduling tasks, I thought ms should be
    > fine and having some devices running fast for some msecs longer won't
    > hurt. However, do you expect scheduling tasks or jiffies may use usecs
    > later? I don't mind using usecs instead of msecs here; thus, I'll
    > update this to use usecs. I'll resend patchset soon.
    >

    I am just asking a question. I'm not sure if us or ms are the better
    units off the top of my head.

    --mark

    --
    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: 2012-03-26 05:05    [W:0.026 / U:29.816 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site