Juuso Oikarinen <juuso.oikarinen@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi,
Moi,
>> > + timeout = local->hw.conf.dynamic_ps_forced_timeout;
>> > + if (timeout < 0) {
>> > + if (latency <= 50000)
>> > + timeout = 300;
>> > + else if (latency <= 2000000000)
>> > + timeout = 100;
>> > + else
>> > + timeout = 0;
>> > + }
>> > + local->hw.conf.dynamic_ps_timeout = timeout;
>>
>> What will be the timeout value when there are no pm_qos requirements
>> from user space applications? Do you know what will be the default
>> latency value in that case?
>
> Yes, the default value is 2000000000 (2000 seconds, ugh.) Hence the
> value in the if statement for 100ms.
Ah, now I understand better.
And ugh indeed, having a default of 2000 seconds for latency is very
awkward. I would have preferred to have a magic value denoting (like
-1 or something) that user space doesn't care. But I guess we have to
live with this :/
Maybe at some point we can talk with QoS framework about this.
>> I'm mostly worried about timeout 0 case, for example I suspect ath9k
>> is broken with that value.
>>
>> Also does this patch change the default value of dynamic ps timeout?
>>
>
> No, the current default does not change. As the default value for the
> latency is 2000s, we will, by default, get a timeout of 100ms.
Excellent. Thank you for explaining these.
>From my point of view these patches look good and I have nothing to
complain.
(I hope Juuso didn't hit his head when falling off from his chair when
reading this.)
--
Kalle Valo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
