[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <1421313626.19448.8.camel@AMDC1943>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:20:26 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net>,
Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] mmc: Add dynamic frequency scaling
On czw, 2015-01-15 at 09:20 +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> + Mike, Stephen (Clock maintainers)
>
> On 12 January 2015 at 10:23, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <k.kozlowski@...sung.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > I would like to hear some comments about idea of scaling MMC clock
> > frequency. The basic idea is to lower the clock when device is
> > completely idle or not busy enough.
>
> We already have host drivers that implements runtime PM support.
> Typically that would mean the clock will be gated once the device
> becomes runtime PM suspended.
>
> Why should we decrease the frequency of an already gated clock?
In case of idle state you're right that clkgate would be better. But
what about finding a compromise between high performance (high
frequency) and energy saving for different loads on MMC?
The frequency scaling could help in that case. Anyway I should prepare
some more benchmarks for such conditions.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
> I think this boils done to how DVFS transitions can be triggered from
> the clock drivers, right?
>
> Currently the clock framework supports this through clock rate change
> notifiers. Should we have clock notifiers for clk_prepare|unprepare()
> as well? I do remember that someone posted patches for that a while
> ago, but those were rejected.
>
> Mike, Stephen - comments?
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
> >
> > The patchset adds MMC card as a devfreq device and uses simple_ondemand
> > as governor. In idle this gave benefits (less energy consumed during
> > idle):
> > 1. Trats2 (Exynos4412): 2.6%
> > 2. Rinato (Exynos3250): 1%
> >
> > but (especially on Rinato) it had impact on performance (probably
> > because ondemand triggering a little to late). What is interesting
> > manually changing the clock (without this patchset) gave slightly
> > bigger benefits. Maybe the devfreq introduces noticeable overhead?
> >
> >
> > Comments are welcomed. Maybe on other platforms this has bigger impact?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
> >
> >
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski (3):
> > mmc: Add dynamic frequency scaling
> > ARM: dts: Specify MSHC realistic clocks and use frequency scaling
> > ARM: dts: Use frequency scaling for MSHC
> >
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc.txt | 2 +
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250-rinato.dts | 1 +
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4412-trats2.dts | 4 +-
> > drivers/mmc/card/block.c | 247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/mmc/core/Kconfig | 16 ++
> > drivers/mmc/core/core.h | 1 -
> > drivers/mmc/core/host.c | 2 +
> > include/linux/mmc/card.h | 8 +
> > include/linux/mmc/host.h | 3 +
> > 9 files changed, 282 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 1.9.1
> >
--
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