From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0FEC4361B for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 10:37:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3749223B6C for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 10:37:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729964AbgLIKhk (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:37:40 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57132 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730151AbgLIKhk (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2020 05:37:40 -0500 Received: from mail-vk1-xa43.google.com (mail-vk1-xa43.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a43]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D75AFC0613D6 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 02:36:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vk1-xa43.google.com with SMTP id k9so219850vke.4 for ; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 02:36:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PQKNw4rve2IFVJSgF3l1spNsP6KxWxPlzjeFvHTILG0=; b=Y9L1cuKMRxS6cqV7wccn+NGMdFdyyON6mLbp2AaqFKahxop11+l8k+S2xRnJl1SqG9 h+VQO9T8cqjEN875Om5IIf3Dhi8u0yEMgFb6U55SgOXP/b2oguHH6zG8Digs/B7beMf/ AbIydlLEu/lsB9iQIFGVR7RFVrd0H8kif/Tv7R2GgE4LBBHZcbMekWESIBSZ9/C6t7Ef 2JbODYxFSb49yTmLnC8ZCbSmqn1QtYhTxTueeb7PU+mz1aromoxyVU3VOTk0YuDznu2o rDji9mX0/1/SfgNsOIRUBjOhHZ290apmetlnIqPWZm2M8K/FxgEF+rJMuISWwAkpSHqI L9rQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PQKNw4rve2IFVJSgF3l1spNsP6KxWxPlzjeFvHTILG0=; b=FkgZzZ4AP+T5P+0xgWqzy7JDOPlZkMS5QqL/a4ZTKR6NgLUijU/wQhjYO506afJonc CKm1bfbVnIOdVBwWYOxdViHgkeVcJbDjrpAy24myRgD7+7tNhd1KR0zAhP6n6IWj+hGx l04Uu/FSzuSAgasB1poccEk4+V1bACgAvoCfXA5+j5P8h3gsggy1ocMjjuubybjXanFg iXgXtZn9wntkFUsD3MlaT18GjvshjuLKV/2NaElVjoy2a/ymBXxcQuLbzxXS9pydUQXZ iuZcGQsB+c9593zLbG2eh8k7G5FrAh9jytw1ZbdLVxRXjZh0obUCuKht17T1r2OsZ5Ai LIWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531lhd1ubqKlLCec7XaLdjqAL/LuxjK6C7bkVSam2Xad0LctX/D+ 7/tWmotSbhnBDzqPgKVe3jRr31rD3Dc8gZu/tlak0g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyVitP1UALU6m5dkizscGddpcIFL9RAOWmFm2lsp2l4uQK1PzcUJ9Hmx5fd+n7WoWWzxgjxgn7yBsdYJ8tEZlE= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:dec2:: with SMTP id v185mr1196976vkg.8.1607510219009; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 02:36:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201130225039.15981-1-ilina@codeaurora.org> In-Reply-To: From: Ulf Hansson Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 11:36:22 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Better domain idle from device wakeup patterns To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Lina Iyer , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux PM , linux-arm-msm Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 18:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:51 PM Lina Iyer wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > The v5[1] of the series brought out some interesting discussions. The > > most important being is it worth adding the additional expense to all PM > > domains even if no wakeup pattern is available. It seems like > > maintaining a domain specific flag that the governor could check is a > > generic enough option. That should disable additional overhead for > > domains that do not need this feature. > > > > Ulf suggested that we could allow wakeups only if any of the domain idle > > state specifies a residency. However, we don't want to check for next > > wakeup everytime the domain enters idle just because the domain > > specifies an idle state with residency. This is also not desired. > > > > Also, if the domain checks for next wakeup, should the parent domains of > > the domain also check for next wakeup? And when do we set that up? These > > are questions that we don't know the answers yet. So, let's enable the > > domain governor only if the domain sets up the flag or when the device > > in the domain specifies the next wakeup. > > > > The previous post of the series explaining why this is a useful feature > > is v5[1]. Please let me know what you think. > > Ulf had comments on the previous versions, so waiting for him to > respond here, thanks! Yes, I will have a look, but please allow me some more time - it's a busy period for me. Kind regards Uffe