linux-kernel - RE: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA1BBBBC9359F04AA639128AC0D5D1E96931D4BB@orsmsx502.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Jun 2010 07:52:38 -0700
From:	"Gross, Mark" <mark.gross@...el.com>
To:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, "tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"felipe.balbi@...ia.com" <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>
Subject: RE: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:khilman@...prootsystems.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 7:43 AM
>To: Peter Zijlstra
>Cc: Alan Cox; Gross, Mark; Florian Mickler; James Bottomley; Arve
>Hjønnevåg; Neil Brown; tytso@....edu; LKML; Thomas Gleixner; Linux OMAP
>Mailing List; Linux PM; felipe.balbi@...ia.com
>Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)
>
>Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>>> > [mtg: ] This has been a pain point for the PM_QOS implementation.
>>> They change the constrain back and forth at the transaction level of
>>> the i2c driver.  The pm_qos code really wasn't made to deal with such
>>> hot path use, as each such change triggers a re-computation of what
>>> the aggregate qos request is.
>>>
>>> That should be trivial in the usual case because 99% of the time you can
>>> hot path
>>>
>>> 	the QoS entry changing is the latest one
>>> 	there have been no other changes
>>> 	If it is valid I can use the cached previous aggregate I cunningly
>>> 		saved in the top QoS entry when I computed the new one
>>>
>>> (ie most of the time from the kernel side you have a QoS stack)
>>
>> Why would the kernel change the QoS state of a task? Why not have two
>> interacting QoS variables, one for the task, one for the subsystem in
>> question, and the action depends on their relative value?
>
>Yes, having a QoS parameter per-subsystem (or even per-device) is very
>important for SoCs that have independently controlled powerdomains.
>If all devices/subsystems in a particular powerdomain have QoS
>parameters that permit, the power state of that powerdomain can be
>lowered independently from system-wide power state and power states of
>other power domains.
>
This seems similar to that pm_qos generalization into bus drivers we where 
waving our hands at during the collab summit in April?  We never did get 
into meaningful detail at that time.

--mgross


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