On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:11 AM, <jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -129,19 +146,19 @@ static const struct file_operations pm_qos_power_fops = {
> /* unlocked internal variant */
> static inline int pm_qos_get_value(struct pm_qos_object *o)
> {
> - if (plist_head_empty(&o->requests))
> + if (plist_head_empty(o->requests))
> return o->default_value;
>
> switch (o->type) {
> - case PM_QOS_MIN:
> - return plist_first(&o->requests)->prio;
> + case PM_QOS_MIN:
> + return plist_first(o->requests)->prio;
>
> - case PM_QOS_MAX:
> - return plist_last(&o->requests)->prio;
> + case PM_QOS_MAX:
> + return plist_last(o->requests)->prio;
>
> - default:
> - /* runtime check for not using enum */
> - BUG();
> + default:
> + /* runtime check for not using enum */
> + BUG();
> }
> }
Hello,
Sorry to jump in this late, but, I've got a question in choosing QoS
value from the list with pm_qos_get_value function and pm_qos_type.
For QoS objects such as network throughput, wouldn't "PM_QOS_ADD" be
more appropriate than PM_QOS_MAX?
If A is requesting 10MB/s on NIC-X and B is requesting 5MB/s on NIC-X,
I guess PM QOS should say NIC-X that it needs to provide 15MB/s, not
10MB/s. Or, are we assuming that A and B will never put streams at the
same time?
Thanks,
MyungJoo
--
MyungJoo Ham, Ph.D.
Mobile Software Platform Lab, DMC Business, Samsung Electronics
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
