On 9/14/2016 10:28 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Rafael,

On 14 September 2016 at 00:10, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:02:49 PM Alex Shi wrote:
Hi Daniel & Rafael,

Any comments on this patch?
I actually am not sure about the whole series.

I know your motivation, but honestly the changes here may not be the best way
to achieve what you need.

You may think that the changes are trivial, but in fact they are not.  There
are side effects and I'm not sure about the resulting user space interface
at all.
This patchset has got 2 parts:
- one part is about taking into account per-device resume latency
constraint when selecting the idle state of a CPU. This value can
already be set by kernel (even if it's probably not done yet) but this
constraint is never taken into account
- the other part is about exposing the resume latency to userspace.
This part might raise more discussion but I see one example that could
take advantage of this. When you have several clusters of CPUs and you
want to dedicate some CPUs  to latency sensitive activity and prevent
deep sleep  state on these CPUs but you want to let the other CPUs
using all C-state

The first very basic question about this I have is whether or not the device PM QoS mechanism is suitable for the task at hand at all.

It certainly hasn't been invented with it in mind.


Reply via email to