| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <201202142308.14165.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:08:13 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, Jean Pihet <j-pihet@...com>,
markgross <markgross@...gnar.org>, kyungmin.park@...sung.com,
myungjoo.ham@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] PM / QoS: add pm_qos_update_request_timeout API
Hi,
On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> The new API, pm_qos_update_request_timeout() is to provide a timeout
> with pm_qos_update_request.
I need to know what the other people in the CC list think about that. It would
definitely help if you described a use case.
> For example, pm_qos_update_request_timeout(req, 100, 1000), means that
> QoS request on req with value 100 will be active for 1000 jiffies.
Could that be a different time unit instead of jiffies?
> After 1000 jiffies, the QoS request thru req is rolled back to the
> request status when pm_qos_update_request_timeout() was called. If there
> were another pm_qos_update_request(req, x) during the 1000 jiffies, this
> new request with value x will override as this is another request on the
> same req handle. A new request on the same req handle will always
> override the previous request whether it is the conventional request or
> it is the new timeout request.
>
> Signed-off-by: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
> ---
> include/linux/pm_qos.h | 5 ++++
> kernel/power/qos.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/pm_qos.h b/include/linux/pm_qos.h
> index f8ccb7b..1c29f52 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pm_qos.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pm_qos.h
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
> #include <linux/notifier.h>
> #include <linux/miscdevice.h>
> #include <linux/device.h>
> +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
>
> #define PM_QOS_RESERVED 0
> #define PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY 1
> @@ -29,6 +30,8 @@
> struct pm_qos_request {
> struct plist_node node;
> int pm_qos_class;
> + s32 value; /* the back-up value for pm_qos_update_request_timeout */
Well, what about "saved_value"?
> + struct delayed_work work; /* for pm_qos_update_request_timeout */
> };
>
> struct dev_pm_qos_request {
> @@ -74,6 +77,8 @@ void pm_qos_add_request(struct pm_qos_request *req, int pm_qos_class,
> s32 value);
> void pm_qos_update_request(struct pm_qos_request *req,
> s32 new_value);
> +void pm_qos_update_request_timeout(struct pm_qos_request *req,
> + s32 new_value, unsigned long timeout);
> void pm_qos_remove_request(struct pm_qos_request *req);
>
> int pm_qos_request(int pm_qos_class);
> diff --git a/kernel/power/qos.c b/kernel/power/qos.c
> index b15e0b7..acfa433 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/qos.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/qos.c
> @@ -259,6 +259,21 @@ int pm_qos_request_active(struct pm_qos_request *req)
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_qos_request_active);
>
> /**
> + * pm_qos_timeout - the timeout handler of pm_qos_update_request_timeout
> + * @work: work struct for the delayed work (timeout)
> + *
> + * This cancels the timeout request and rolls the request value back.
> + */
> +static void pm_qos_timeout(struct work_struct *work)
I'd call it pm_qos_work_fn(), so that it's clear what it is.
> +{
> + struct pm_qos_request *req = container_of(to_delayed_work(work),
> + struct pm_qos_request,
> + work);
> +
> + pm_qos_update_request(req, req->value);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> * pm_qos_add_request - inserts new qos request into the list
> * @req: pointer to a preallocated handle
> * @pm_qos_class: identifies which list of qos request to use
> @@ -282,6 +297,8 @@ void pm_qos_add_request(struct pm_qos_request *req,
> return;
> }
> req->pm_qos_class = pm_qos_class;
> + req->value = value;
> + INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&req->work, pm_qos_timeout);
> pm_qos_update_target(pm_qos_array[pm_qos_class]->constraints,
> &req->node, PM_QOS_ADD_REQ, value);
> }
> @@ -308,14 +325,46 @@ void pm_qos_update_request(struct pm_qos_request *req,
> return;
> }
>
> - if (new_value != req->node.prio)
> + if (delayed_work_pending(&req->work))
> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&req->work);
> +
That may result in setting the target value to an unwanted one temporarily.
Namely, if pm_qos_timeout() is already running, it will switch back to the
"original" target value before the new one is set. The PM QoS users may see
the "restored" value and use it in their decision making. Do we care?
> + req->value = new_value;
> + if (new_value != req->node.prio) {
> pm_qos_update_target(
> pm_qos_array[req->pm_qos_class]->constraints,
> &req->node, PM_QOS_UPDATE_REQ, new_value);
> + }
Adding brances here doesn't belong to this patch.
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_qos_update_request);
>
> /**
> + * pm_qos_update_request_timeout - modifies an existing qos request temporarily.
> + * @req : handle to list element holding a pm_qos request to use
> + * @new_value: defines the temporal qos request
> + * @timeout: the effective duration of this qos request in jiffies
> + *
> + * After timeout, this qos request is cancelled automatically.
> + */
> +void pm_qos_update_request_timeout(struct pm_qos_request *req, s32 new_value,
> + unsigned long timeout)
> +{
> + if (!req)
> + return;
> + if (WARN(!pm_qos_request_active(req),
> + "pm_qos_update_request_timeout() called for unknown object."))
Please use __func__ in messages like this.
> + return;
> +
> + if (new_value != req->node.prio) {
> + pm_qos_update_target(
> + pm_qos_array[req->pm_qos_class]->constraints,
> + &req->node, PM_QOS_UPDATE_REQ, new_value);
> + if (delayed_work_pending(&req->work))
> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&req->work);
It seems that if pm_qos_timeout() has been started already, it will overwrite
the value that we've just set, or am I missing something?
> + schedule_delayed_work(&req->work, timeout);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +/**
> * pm_qos_remove_request - modifies an existing qos request
> * @req: handle to request list element
> *
> @@ -334,6 +383,9 @@ void pm_qos_remove_request(struct pm_qos_request *req)
> return;
> }
>
> + if (delayed_work_pending(&req->work))
> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&req->work);
> +
> pm_qos_update_target(pm_qos_array[req->pm_qos_class]->constraints,
> &req->node, PM_QOS_REMOVE_REQ,
> PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE);
>
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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