Re: [RFC] QoS params patch

[Mark Gross]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:51:41AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:19:21 -0700 Mark Gross <mgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 11:25:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:40:26 -0700 Mark Gross <mgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > +#define QOS_RESERVED 0
> > > > +#define QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY 1
> > > > +#define QOS_NETWORK_LATENCY 2
> > > > +#define QOS_NETWORK_THROUGHPUT 3
> > > > +
> > > > +#define QOS_NUM_CLASSES 4
> > > > +#define QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE -1
> > > > +
> > > > +int qos_add_requirement(int qos, char *name, s32 value);
> > > > +int qos_update_requirement(int qos, char *name, s32 new_value);
> > > > +void qos_remove_requirement(int qos, char *name);
> > > 
> > > It's a bit rude stealing the entire "qos" namespace like this - there are
> > > many different forms of QoS, some already in-kernel.
> > > 
> > > s/qos/pm_qos/g ?
> > 
> > I suppose it is a bit inconiderate.  I could grow to like pm_qos,
> > performance_throttling_constraint_hint_infrastructure is a bit too
> > wordy. 
> > 
> > I suppose I should use qospm as thats the way it was put up on that
> > lesswatts.org web page. 
> > 
> > Would qospm be good enough?
> > 
> 
> Don't think it matters a lot, but kernel naming tends to be big-endian (ie:
> we have net_ratelimit, not ratelimit_net), so the major part (pm) would
> come first under that scheme.

this makes sense.  pm_qos it is.

--mgross
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/