| Message ID | 1483630187-29622-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:29:46PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > The cpu-dma PM QoS constraint impacts all the cpus in the system. There > is no way to let the user to choose a PM QoS constraint per cpu. > > The following patch exposes to the userspace a per cpu based sysfs file > in order to let the userspace to change the value of the PM QoS latency > constraint. > > This change is inoperative in its form and the cpuidle governors have to > take into account the per cpu latency constraint in addition to the > global cpu-dma latency constraint in order to operate properly. > > BTW > The pm_qos_resume_latency usage defined in > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-power > The /sys/devices/.../power/pm_qos_resume_latency_us attribute > contains the PM QoS resume latency limit for the given device, > which is the maximum allowed time it can take to resume the > device, after it has been suspended at run time, from a resume > request to the moment the device will be ready to process I/O, > in microseconds. If it is equal to 0, however, this means that > the PM QoS resume latency may be arbitrary. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > --- > drivers/base/cpu.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/cpu.c b/drivers/base/cpu.c > index 4c28e1a..29cf3459 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/cpu.c > +++ b/drivers/base/cpu.c > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ > #include <linux/of.h> > #include <linux/cpufeature.h> > #include <linux/tick.h> > +#include <linux/pm_qos.h> > > #include "base.h" > > @@ -376,6 +377,9 @@ int register_cpu(struct cpu *cpu, int num) > > per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, num) = &cpu->dev; > register_cpu_under_node(num, cpu_to_node(num)); > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_GOV_MENU > + dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit(&cpu->dev, 0); > +#endif No way to do this without the #ifdef? That's really not recommended for .c code :( thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> > #include "base.h" >> > >> > @@ -376,6 +377,9 @@ int register_cpu(struct cpu *cpu, int num) >> > >> > per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, num) = &cpu->dev; >> > register_cpu_under_node(num, cpu_to_node(num)); >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_GOV_MENU >> > + dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit(&cpu->dev, 0); >> > +#endif > No way to do this without the #ifdef? That's really not recommended for > .c code :( > Hi Greg, Thanks for comments! The function dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit() is null if no CONFIG_PM. So when CONFIG_PM enabled, may we could consider the cpu idle is also wanted. In this assumption the #ifdef could be removed. If user want to use this feature, she/he should understand the feature only work on menu gov only currently. So consider this, I guess we could remove this #ifdef. :) Any different concerns on this? Regards Alex BTW, Although I did try this patch on other platform, but it clearly other multi core system, like x86 could also get the same benefit. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> wrote: > >>> > #include "base.h" >>> > >>> > @@ -376,6 +377,9 @@ int register_cpu(struct cpu *cpu, int num) >>> > >>> > per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, num) = &cpu->dev; >>> > register_cpu_under_node(num, cpu_to_node(num)); >>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_GOV_MENU >>> > + dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit(&cpu->dev, 0); >>> > +#endif >> No way to do this without the #ifdef? That's really not recommended for >> .c code :( >> > > Hi Greg, > > Thanks for comments! > > The function dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit() is null if no CONFIG_PM. > So when CONFIG_PM enabled, may we could consider the cpu idle is also > wanted. In this assumption the #ifdef could be removed. If user want to > use this feature, she/he should understand the feature only work on menu > gov only currently. So consider this, I guess we could remove this > #ifdef. :) But instead of putting the #ifdef into the function body, you can use a wrapper function defined to be empty for CONFIG_PM unset. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 01/12/2017 02:40 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > >> > Hi Greg, >> > >> > Thanks for comments! >> > >> > The function dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit() is null if no CONFIG_PM. >> > So when CONFIG_PM enabled, may we could consider the cpu idle is also >> > wanted. In this assumption the #ifdef could be removed. If user want to >> > use this feature, she/he should understand the feature only work on menu >> > gov only currently. So consider this, I guess we could remove this >> > #ifdef. :) > But instead of putting the #ifdef into the function body, you can use > a wrapper function defined to be empty for CONFIG_PM unset. Thanks Rafael! The function dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit() is empty now when CONFIG_PM disabled. :) I will resend the patch without the #ifdef. Thanks! Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/base/cpu.c b/drivers/base/cpu.c index 4c28e1a..29cf3459 100644 --- a/drivers/base/cpu.c +++ b/drivers/base/cpu.c @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ #include <linux/of.h> #include <linux/cpufeature.h> #include <linux/tick.h> +#include <linux/pm_qos.h> #include "base.h" @@ -376,6 +377,9 @@ int register_cpu(struct cpu *cpu, int num) per_cpu(cpu_sys_devices, num) = &cpu->dev; register_cpu_under_node(num, cpu_to_node(num)); +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_GOV_MENU + dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit(&cpu->dev, 0); +#endif return 0; }
The cpu-dma PM QoS constraint impacts all the cpus in the system. There is no way to let the user to choose a PM QoS constraint per cpu. The following patch exposes to the userspace a per cpu based sysfs file in order to let the userspace to change the value of the PM QoS latency constraint. This change is inoperative in its form and the cpuidle governors have to take into account the per cpu latency constraint in addition to the global cpu-dma latency constraint in order to operate properly. BTW The pm_qos_resume_latency usage defined in Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-power The /sys/devices/.../power/pm_qos_resume_latency_us attribute contains the PM QoS resume latency limit for the given device, which is the maximum allowed time it can take to resume the device, after it has been suspended at run time, from a resume request to the moment the device will be ready to process I/O, in microseconds. If it is equal to 0, however, this means that the PM QoS resume latency may be arbitrary. Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> --- drivers/base/cpu.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)