Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1560458 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] cpu: expose pm_qos_resume_latency for each cpu

Started byDaniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
First post2017-01-17 11:40 +0100
Last post2017-01-19 09:20 +0100
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] cpu: expose pm_qos_resume_latency for each cpu Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2017-01-17 11:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] cpu: expose pm_qos_resume_latency for each cpu Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> - 2017-01-19 09:20 +0100

#1560458 — Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] cpu: expose pm_qos_resume_latency for each cpu

FromDaniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Date2017-01-17 11:40 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/3] cpu: expose pm_qos_resume_latency for each cpu
Message-ID<t0zlf-5WC-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 09:27:03PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> The cpu-dma PM QoS constraint impacts all the cpus in the system. There
> is no way to let the user to choose a PM QoS constraint per cpu.
> 
> The following patch exposes to the userspace a per cpu based sysfs file
> in order to let the userspace to change the value of the PM QoS latency
> constraint.
> 
> This change is inoperative in its form and the cpuidle governors have to
> take into account the per cpu latency constraint in addition to the
> global cpu-dma latency constraint in order to operate properly.
> 
> BTW
> The pm_qos_resume_latency usage defined in
> Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-power
> The /sys/devices/.../power/pm_qos_resume_latency_us attribute
> contains the PM QoS resume latency limit for the given device,
> which is the maximum allowed time it can take to resume the
> device, after it has been suspended at run time, from a resume
> request to the moment the device will be ready to process I/O,
> in microseconds.  If it is equal to 0, however, this means that
> the PM QoS resume latency may be arbitrary.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/base/cpu.c | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/cpu.c b/drivers/base/cpu.c
> index 4c28e1a..2c3b359 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/cpu.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/cpu.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>  #include <linux/of.h>
>  #include <linux/cpufeature.h>
>  #include <linux/tick.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_qos.h>
>  
>  #include "base.h"
>  
> @@ -376,6 +377,7 @@ int register_cpu(struct cpu *cpu, int num)
>  
>  	per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, num) = &cpu->dev;
>  	register_cpu_under_node(num, cpu_to_node(num));
> +	dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit(&cpu->dev, 0);

This patch should be submitted as the last patch in the latencies constraint
changes patchset IMO. It is pointless to provide an interface before a
feature which is still under discussion.


-- 

 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1562461

FromAlex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>
Date2017-01-19 09:20 +0100
Message-ID<t1g6S-7tL-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1560458

On 01/17/2017 06:23 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> >  
>> > @@ -376,6 +377,7 @@ int register_cpu(struct cpu *cpu, int num)
>> >  
>> >  	per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, num) = &cpu->dev;
>> >  	register_cpu_under_node(num, cpu_to_node(num));
>> > +	dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit(&cpu->dev, 0);
> This patch should be submitted as the last patch in the latencies constraint
> changes patchset IMO. It is pointless to provide an interface before a
> feature which is still under discussion.

Thanks for comments!

will fold it into next patch!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web