[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111010172557.332bfe30@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:25:57 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM List <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Question] PM-QoS: PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY == interrupt latency?
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:31:34 +0800
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Looks like it is a bit difficult to understand PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY
> from the words' meaning.
>
> After searching from google, I don't find some useful information about
> the root cause for introducing PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY. I understand
> it is very similar to interrupt latency. Also from the comment for
> omap_pm_set_max_mpu_wakeup_lat in file[1], the description is basically same
> with interrupt latency.
>
> >From comments of pm_qos_add_request usages in drivers, it can be understood
> as interrupt latency too, IMO.
>
> So, could we think that PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY is interrupt latency?
No. Well it may be on some platforms but it isn't the same thing. On some
devices a DMA transfer doesn't need the CPU involved but needs the CPU to
respond within a set timescale (eg for coherency or bus arbitration). It
is not the same thing as IRQ latency.
--
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