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: <4C0823AF.6020709@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Thu, 03 Jun 2010 14:50:39 -0700
From:	Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@...eaurora.org>
To:	"Gross, Mark" <mark.gross@...el.com>
CC:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	"felipe.balbi@...ia.com" <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Linux@...p1.linux-foundation.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

>> 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

I think there is definitely a need for QoS parameters per-device.  I've 
been pondering how to incorporate this concept into runtime_pm.  One 
idea would be to add pm_qos-like callbacks to struct dev_pm_ops, e.g. 
runtime_pm_qos_add/update/remove_requirement().  Requirements would be 
passed up the tree to the first parent that cares, usually a bus driver. 
  Is this similar to what you guys were discussing at the collab summit? 
  Thanks.

- Bryan
--
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/