All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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: link
Be 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.