Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] Better domain idle from device wakeup patterns

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 18:26, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:51 PM Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux