Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752900Ab0H1CFp (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:05:45 -0400 Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:49457 "EHLO mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751389Ab0H1CFn (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2010 22:05:43 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; b=EWudX9VGlLN/BjpET0QJLGEtqCUG6HKwBvGn/HiEH9FupymAqmi2k4fFCOgqrdSyov Y4ZzsY3p/XsMLSzr0kf+3V69nmX0tTIki+ZlrtUdMKoSe96Pbqyjo/RbDdpT0c8hj6v8 xgueIA5pV03KPcR+wRn0R6ixsgv5RzYQT7Xic= Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:05:40 -0700 From: mark gross To: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: markgross@thegnar.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , James Bottomley , Frederic Weisbecker , Jonathan Corbet , khilman@deeprootsystems.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] pm_qos: Add system bus performance parameter Message-ID: <20100828020540.GB8341@gvim.org> Reply-To: markgross@thegnar.org References: <1282882403-29824-1-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> <1282882403-29824-2-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> <20100827064153.GB3414@gvim.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2827 Lines: 69 On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:10:55AM -0700, skannan@codeaurora.org wrote: > > > nack. > > > > Change the name to system_bus_throughput_pm_qos assuming KBS units and > > I'll ok it. It needs to be portable and without units I think drivers > > will start using magic numbers that will break when you go from a > > devices with 16 to 32 bus with the same clock. > > > > We had an email thread about this last year > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/31/143 > > I don't recall solution ever coming out of it. I think you guys didn't > > like the idea of using units. Further I did post a patch adding > > something like using units. Although I looks like I botch the post the > > linux-pm as I can't seem to find it in the linux-pm archives :( > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/22/213 > > > > Would you be ok with using throughput instead of a unit less performance > > magic number? > > > > > > --mark > > Ignoring other details for now, the biggest problem with throughput/KBps > units is that PM QoS can't handle it well in its current state. For KBps > the requests should be added together before it's "enforced". Just picking > the maximum won't work optimally. well then current pm_qos code for network throughput takes the max. > Another problem with using KBps is that the available throughput is going > to vary depending on the CPU frequency since the CPU running at a higher > freq is going to use more bandwidth/throughput than the same CPU running > at a lower freq. um, if your modem SPI needs a min freq its really saying it needs a min throughput (throughput is just a scaler times freq, and 8KBS is a 13 bit shift away from HZ for SPI) > A KHz unit will side step both problems. It's not the most ideal in theory > but it's simple and gets the job done since, in our case, there aren't > very many fine grained levels of system bus frequencies (and corresponding > throughputs). I think your getting too wrapped up with this Hz thing and need write a couple of shift macros to convert between Kbs and Hz and be happy. > > I understand that other architectures might have different practical > constraints and abilities and I didn't want to impose the KHz limitation > on them. That's the reason I proposed a parameter whose units is defined > by the "enforcer". The problem is that doing this will result in too many one-off drivers that don't port nicely to my architecture when I use the same peripheral as you. > Thoughts? > not really anything additional, other than I wonder why kbs isn't working for you. Perhaps I'm missing something subtle. --mark -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/