linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pm_qos: Add system bus performance parameter

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20100902140546.GA2818@gvim.org>
Date:	Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:05:46 -0700
From:	mark gross <markgross@...gnar.org>
To:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>
Cc:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	mark gross <markgross@...gnar.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pm_qos: Add system bus performance parameter

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 07:31:46AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org> writes:
> 
> > Some drivers/devices might need some minimum system bus performance to
> > provide acceptable service. Provide a PM QoS parameter to send these requests
> > to.
> >
> > The new parameter is named "system bus performance" since it is generic enough
> > for the unit of the request to be frequency, bandwidth or something else that
> > might be appropriate. It's up to each implementation of the QoS provider to
> > define what the unit of the request would be.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
> 
> With this current design, only one system-wide bus would be managed.
> What if a platform has more than one independently scalable bus?
> 
> I think the only scalable way to handle this kind of thing is to have
> per-device QoS constraints that can then be combined/aggregated by parent
> devices/busses.
> 
> At LPC this year, I've proposed per-device QoS constraints[1] as a topic
> for the PM mini-conf.  I hope some folks from the MSM camp can be there
> for these discussions.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> [1] http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2010/ocw/proposals/819

I thought a pm_qos like thing per bus would be a patch or you where
going to put up to the driver model. ;)

The current pm_qos would stick around for higher level pm_qos things.
So making the system bus and changing to a summation aggregation would
be  temporary thing.  

Or are you you saying we shouldn't put system_bus into pm_qos at all and
instead we should put effort into adding it to the driver model for
buses?

If so, then I don't know what to do next, I could prototype both I
suppose (well implement the sum+system_bus in pm_qos as an RFC patch,
and take a stab at the driver model thing. )


--mark
> > ---
> >  kernel/pm_qos_params.c |    9 +++++++++
> >  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/pm_qos_params.c b/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> > index 996a4de..1a44a67 100644
> > --- a/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> > +++ b/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> > @@ -93,12 +93,21 @@ static struct pm_qos_object network_throughput_pm_qos = {
> >  	.type = PM_QOS_MAX,
> >  };
> >  
> > +static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(system_bus_performance_notifier);
> > +static struct pm_qos_object system_bus_performance_pm_qos = {
> > +	.requests = PLIST_HEAD_INIT(system_bus_performance_pm_qos.requests, pm_qos_lock),
> > +	.notifiers = &system_bus_performance_notifier,
> > +	.name = "system_bus_performance",
> > +	.default_value = 0,
> > +	.type = PM_QOS_MAX,
> > +};
> >  
> >  static struct pm_qos_object *pm_qos_array[] = {
> >  	&null_pm_qos,
> >  	&cpu_dma_pm_qos,
> >  	&network_lat_pm_qos,
> >  	&network_throughput_pm_qos
> > +	&system_bus_performance_pm_qos
> >  };
> >  
> >  static ssize_t pm_qos_power_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *buf,
--
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/