On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 12:12:19AM +0100, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> Quoting Lorenzo Pieralisi (2014-05-06 11:04:40)
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/of_idle_states.c b/drivers/cpuidle/of_idle_states.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..360b7ad
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/of_idle_states.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,293 @@
> ...
> > +static int __init add_state_node(cpumask_t *cpumask,
> > + struct device_node *state_node)
> > +{
> > + struct state_elem *el;
> > + u32 tmp, val = 0;
> > +
> > + pr_debug(" * %s...\n", state_node->full_name);
> > +
> > + if (!state_cpus_valid(cpumask, state_node))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + /*
> > + * Parse just the properties required to sort the states.
> > + * Since we are missing a value defining the energy
> > + * efficiency of a state, for now the sorting code uses
> > + *
> > + * min-residency-us+exit-latency-us
> > + *
> > + * as sorting rank.
> > + */
> > + if (of_property_read_u32(state_node, "min-residency-us",
> > + &tmp)) {
> > + pr_debug(" * %s missing min-residency-us property\n",
> > + state_node->full_name);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + val += tmp;
> > +
> > + if (of_property_read_u32(state_node, "exit-latency-us",
> > + &tmp)) {
> > + pr_debug(" * %s missing exit-latency-us property\n",
> > + state_node->full_name);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + val += tmp;
>
> Sorry if i'm rehashing old stuff, but I prefer not to use the
> min-residency + exit-latency to sort. I saw Rob's comment suggesting it
> and your reply. I'm not sure when it was decided.
>
> Would it be possible to sort instead based on the order in the
> cpus->cpu-idle-states? If not, my preference would be to either use
> index like you had before, or specify another sort order / rank value.
>
> I think there's potential for us to create lower power states that
> have lower min-residencies (reduced power consumption in the state,
> allowing us to more quickly recover the higher entrance cost)
> with higher exit latencies in such a way that the formula would not
> sort as we expect. Having a separate value would allow us to control
> the sorting in those cases.
Ok, so adding to my previous comment, would exit_latency by itself be
enough ? Can we think of a system where ranking by exit_latency is wrong ?
If yes, we need a power rank, and this patch is wrong too:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=139924292401056&w=2
If answer is not, I can just rely on exit_latency to sort the states.
Lorenzo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
