Re: [PATCH]PM QOS refresh against next-20100430

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Mon, 03 May 2010 09:40:11 -0700
Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > One question, though...  one clear use of this API is for drivers to
> > say "don't go into C3 or deeper because things go wrong"; I'm about to
> > add another one of those.  It works, but the use of a
> > PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY requirement with a hard-coded number that one
> > hopes is small enough seems a bit...indirect.  I wonder if it would be
> > clearer and more robust to add a new requirement^Wrequest type saying
> > "the quality of service I need is shallow sleeps only"?  
> 
> The problem with that is portability.
> 
> What does "shallow" mean?  

Well, shallow could mean that the state lacks the CPUIDLE_FLAG_DEEP
flag; that should be relatively portable.  In any case, it seems more
so than "if I put in a 55us latency requirement, I'll stay out of C3".

Just a thought, anyway; it's not like I've really worked through a
plausible alternative API.

jon
--
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/