From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@stericsson.com>, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> Cc: "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>, "linux-sh@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:27:30 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CACRpkdZnmCUfk0h+wK=KUvrv5oCudEAdEc_TY6=yZg_3uTqkgw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <4EE865CA.8000407@stericsson.com> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@stericsson.com> wrote: > Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > Using PM QoS as you propose, might prevent some hosts from doing > runtime_suspend|resume completely and thus those might not fulfill power > consumption requirements instead. I do not think we can take this decision > at this level. Is performance more important than power save, that is kind > of the question. I agree with this point. The problematic part of the patch (IMHO) is this: >> + This constraint prevents runtime-suspending the >> + device, if the expected wakeup latency is larger than 100us. (...) >> + int ret = dev_pm_qos_add_request(host->parent, >> + &host->pm_qos, 100); So we hardcode 100us (is that really 100us by the way? I cannot follow this code path but usually these figures are in ms, but what do I know) as the in-between back-to-back transfers. But this delta is dependent on a lot of stuff that only the platform knows, like nominal CPU frequency, bus speed etc, so certainly the platform must be able to modify that number. At the very least, please make this stuff optional using Kconfig so it can be shut off, because I fear it will screw up our PM usecases. Ulfs patch to the mmci driver actually use 50ms for back-to-back intergap between any two hardware-affecting calls into the driver. Yours, Linus Walleij
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@stericsson.com>, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> Cc: "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>, "linux-sh@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is first claimed Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:27:30 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CACRpkdZnmCUfk0h+wK=KUvrv5oCudEAdEc_TY6=yZg_3uTqkgw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <4EE865CA.8000407@stericsson.com> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@stericsson.com> wrote: > Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > Using PM QoS as you propose, might prevent some hosts from doing > runtime_suspend|resume completely and thus those might not fulfill power > consumption requirements instead. I do not think we can take this decision > at this level. Is performance more important than power save, that is kind > of the question. I agree with this point. The problematic part of the patch (IMHO) is this: >> + This constraint prevents runtime-suspending the >> + device, if the expected wakeup latency is larger than 100us. (...) >> + int ret = dev_pm_qos_add_request(host->parent, >> + &host->pm_qos, 100); So we hardcode 100us (is that really 100us by the way? I cannot follow this code path but usually these figures are in ms, but what do I know) as the in-between back-to-back transfers. But this delta is dependent on a lot of stuff that only the platform knows, like nominal CPU frequency, bus speed etc, so certainly the platform must be able to modify that number. At the very least, please make this stuff optional using Kconfig so it can be shut off, because I fear it will screw up our PM usecases. Ulfs patch to the mmci driver actually use 50ms for back-to-back intergap between any two hardware-affecting calls into the driver. Yours, Linus Walleij
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-14 9:27 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2011-12-12 15:46 [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is first Guennadi Liakhovetski 2011-12-12 15:46 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is first claimed Guennadi Liakhovetski 2011-12-13 15:18 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is Ulf Hansson 2011-12-13 15:18 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is first claimed Ulf Hansson 2011-12-13 16:13 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is Guennadi Liakhovetski 2011-12-13 16:13 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is first claimed Guennadi Liakhovetski 2011-12-13 21:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2011-12-13 21:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2011-12-14 9:00 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is Ulf Hansson 2011-12-14 9:00 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is first claimed Ulf Hansson 2011-12-14 9:27 ` Linus Walleij [this message] 2011-12-14 9:27 ` Linus Walleij 2011-12-14 10:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2011-12-14 10:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2011-12-14 15:50 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is Linus Walleij 2011-12-14 15:50 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is first claimed Linus Walleij 2011-12-14 10:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2011-12-14 10:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2011-12-14 11:12 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is Ulf Hansson 2011-12-14 11:12 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is first claimed Ulf Hansson 2011-12-14 21:36 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2011-12-14 21:36 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2011-12-16 9:14 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is Guennadi Liakhovetski 2011-12-16 9:14 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is first claimed Guennadi Liakhovetski 2011-12-19 12:17 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is Ulf Hansson 2011-12-19 12:17 ` [PATCH/RFC] mmc: add a device PM QoS constraint when a host is first claimed Ulf Hansson 2012-03-03 20:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2012-03-03 20:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to='CACRpkdZnmCUfk0h+wK=KUvrv5oCudEAdEc_TY6=yZg_3uTqkgw@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=linus.walleij@linaro.org \ --cc=cjb@laptop.org \ --cc=g.liakhovetski@gmx.de \ --cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=rjw@sisk.pl \ --cc=ulf.hansson@stericsson.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.