On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 10:17:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:51:39 -0700 Mark Gross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The following patch is a generalization of the latency.c implementation
> > done by Arjan last year. It provides infrastructure for more than one
> > parameter, and exposes a user mode interface for processes to register
> > pm_qos expectations of processes.
> >
> >
> > This interface provides a kernel and user mode interface for registering
> > performance expectations by drivers, subsystems and user space
> > applications on one of the parameters.
> >
> > Currently we have {cpu_dma_latency, network_latency, network_throughput}
> > as the initial set of pm_qos parameters.
> >
> > The infrastructure exposes multiple misc device nodes one per
> > implemented parameter. The set of parameters implement is defined by
> > pm_qos_power_init() and pm_qos_params.h. This is done because having
> > the available parameters being runtime configurable or changeable from a
> > driver was seen as too easy to abuse.
>
> I'm a bit surprised that this change appears to have no configurability.
> If one has set CONFIG_PM=n (for example), shouldn't it all go away?
We considered that as an option but as latency.c didn't offer it I
didn't either.
I could see the user mode interface portion of the implementation be
made as a compile time option but the kernel infrastructure will
continue to be needed by at least cpu-idel, pcm_native.c and ipw2100.
You know it could make sense to have the user mode interface part of the
patch as configurable or a build time dependent of sysfs and misc device
support for the linux-tiny guys. Is it practical to make a linux-tiny
without the sysfs infrastructure needed to make a misc device? I'll ask
on the linux-tiny list.
--mgross
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
