Hi Mark, Rafael, On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday, January 10, 2012, mark gross wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 10:27:29PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Monday, January 09, 2012, mark gross wrote: >> > > On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 11:59:24PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > > > On Friday, January 06, 2012, mark gross wrote: >> > > > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 02:36:20AM +0200, Antti P Miettinen wrote: >> > > > > > The inspiration for this patch series is the N9 CPU frequency boost >> > > > > > upon input events: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg00667.html >> > > > > > >> > > > > > and the related changes in git://codeaurora.org/kernel/msm.git tree. >> > > > > > Those patches modify the ondemand cpufreq governor. This patch series >> > > > > > adds minimum and maximum CPU frequency as PM QoS parameters and >> > > > > > modifies the cpufreq core to enforce the PM QoS limits. There is also >> > > > > > an example module for boosting the frequency upon input events. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I've been testing these changes against Ubuntu 3.2 kernel on a Dell >> > > > > > E6420 with the ACPI cpufreq driver. The patches are against >> > > > > > linux-next/master, compile tested against it. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > --Antti >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Alex Frid (1): >> > > > > > PM QoS: Simplify PM QoS expansion/merge >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Antti P Miettinen (5): >> > > > > > PM QoS: Add CPU frequency min/max as PM QoS params >> > > > > > cpufreq: Export user_policy min/max >> > > > > > cpufreq: Preserve sysfs min/max request >> > > > > > cpufreq: Enforce PM QoS min/max limits >> > > > > > input: CPU frequency booster >> > > > > > >> > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 57 +++++++++++++- >> > > > > > drivers/input/Kconfig | 9 ++ >> > > > > > drivers/input/Makefile | 1 + >> > > > > > drivers/input/input-cfboost.c | 174 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > > > > > include/linux/pm_qos.h | 19 ++++- >> > > > > > kernel/power/qos.c | 55 ++++++++++---- >> > > > > > 6 files changed, 293 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >> > > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/input/input-cfboost.c >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > The following is my version of part of this patch set I was tinkering >> > > > > with. Its missing the cpufreq notification this change has and doesn't >> > > > > do anything WRT cfboost. >> > > > > >> > > > > Would it be ok if we could consolidate our two implementations and >> > > > > completely separate the cfboost stuff as a separate patch set? >> > > > > >> > > > > My code below is missing the cpufreq notification logic you have. >> > > > >> > > > Well, I have one substantial problem with this approach. Namely, our >> > > > current PM QoS infrastructure is not suitable for throughput constraints, >> > > > because they should be additive, unlike the latency ones. >> > > > >> > > > Namely, if sombody requests throughput X and someone else Y, the resulting >> > > > combined throughput should be X+Y rather than max(X, Y). >> > > >> > > That can be done easy enough. However; in practice I'm not convinced >> > > doing and additive aggregation of the requested QoS would be any better >> > > than just taking the max. >> > >> > Well, I'd say it's necessary for correctness, perhaps not for the CPU, but in >> > general. If Y is the max, then the subsystem that requested X may easily >> > starve whoever requested the Y by using all of the bandwidth it asked for. >> >> I was thinking about this from the CPU point of view more over the day. >> Given that there are many times more than one make the qos requests >> additive will result in quickly requesting more cpu than is available >> and waisting a lot of power. Also additive aggregation falls over a >> bit on with multi-core. >> >> As the consumer of the cpu resources are tasks, and we can only run one >> task at a time on a cpu, I'm talking myself into thinking that max >> *is* the right way to go for cpu throughput (i.e. frequency). There are case where the constraints values should be additive. The best example is the main memory throughput and so the memory controller frequency (or the L3 frequency on OMAP). The main problem is to estimate the overhead of multiple simultaneous transfers. What do you think? > > I agree, but I wonder what units of throughput should be used in that case? > > Rafael Regards, Jean > _______________________________________________ > linux-pm mailing list > linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
