[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C5B5077.1060901@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:59:51 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
"linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] pm: Add runtime PM statistics
On 8/5/2010 4:20 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven<arjan@...ux.intel.com> writes:
>
>
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * update_pm_runtime_accounting - Update the time accounting of power
>> states
>> + * @dev: Device to update the accounting for
>> + *
>> + * In order to be able to have time accounting of the various power states
>> + * (as used by programs such as PowerTOP to show the effectiveness of
>> runtime
>> + * PM), we need to track the time spent in each state.
>> + * update_pm_runtime_accounting must be called each time before the
>> + * runtime_status field is updated, to account the time in the old state
>> + * correctly.
>> + */
>> +void update_pm_runtime_accounting(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long now = jiffies;
>> + int delta;
>> +
>> + delta = now - dev->power.accounting_timestamp;
>> +
>> + if (delta< 0)
>> + delta = 0;
>> +
>> + dev->power.accounting_timestamp = now;
>> +
>> + if (dev->power.disable_depth> 0)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (dev->power.runtime_status == RPM_SUSPENDED)
>> + dev->power.suspended_jiffies += delta;
>> + else
>> + dev->power.active_jiffies += delta;
>> +}
>>
> By using jiffies, I think we might miss events in drivers that are doing
> runtime PM transitions in short bursts. On embedded systems with slow
> HZ, there could potentially be lots of transitions between ticks.
>
> It would be nicer to use clocksource-based time so transitions between
> jiffies could still be factored into the accounting.
>
you're absolutely right that the current mechanism is more "sampling
accuracy" (similar to most /proc info that shows up with top and such).
on the "slow HZ".. there is no more valid reason to not set HZ to
1000... so we'll get 1 msec sampling rate basically.
the problem with a more accurate clocksource is that it's expensive. And
more... the path to such clocksource itself might be subject to power
management ;-)
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists