cpuidle: ladder: Add per CPU PM QoS resume latency support
PATCH v2 1/1 cpuidle: ladder: Add per CPU PM QoS resume latency support
Individual CPUs may have special requirements to not enter deep idle states. For example, a CPU running real time applications would not want to enter deep idle states to avoid latency impacts. At the same time other CPUs that do not have such a requirement could allow deep idle states to save power.
This was already implemented in the menu governor. Implementing similar changes in the ladder governor which gets selected when CONFIG_NO_HZ and CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE are not set. Refer following commits for the menu governor changes.
commit 9908859acaa9 ("cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration")
commit 6dbf5cea05a7 ("cpuidle: menu: Avoid taking spinlock for accessing QoS values")
---
v2:
- use PM_QOS_RESUME_LATENCY_NO_CONSTRAINT for "no constraint" value Should be applied over https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10024157/
drivers/cpuidle/governors/ladder.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
drivers/cpuidle/governors/ladder.c +7 -0
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@#include <linux/pm_qos.h> #include <linux/jiffies.h> #include <linux/tick.h> +#include <linux/cpu.h> #include <asm/io.h> #include <linux/uaccess.h>
@@ -67,10 +68,16 @@ static int ladder_select_state(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev) {struct ladder_device *ldev =this_cpu_ptr (&ladder_devices); +struct device *device =get_cpu_device (dev->cpu);struct ladder_device_state *last_state;int last_residency, last_idx = ldev->last_state_idx;int first_idx = drv->states[0 ].flags &CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING ?1 :0 ;int latency_req =pm_qos_request (PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY ); +int resume_latency =dev_pm_qos_raw_read_value (device); + +if (resume_latency < latency_req && + resume_latency !=PM_QOS_RESUME_LATENCY_NO_CONSTRAINT ) + latency_req = resume_latency;/* Special case when user has set very strict latency requirement */ if (unlikely (latency_req ==0 )) {
Signature · 1 line
2.7.4
Rafael J. Wysocki
maintainerQuoted 57 lines · Ramesh Thomas
Individual CPUs may have special requirements to not enter deep idle states. For example, a CPU running real time applications would not want to enter deep idle states to avoid latency impacts. At the same time other CPUs that do not have such a requirement could allow deep idle states to save power.
This was already implemented in the menu governor. Implementing similar changes in the ladder governor which gets selected when
CONFIG_NO_HZandCONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLEare not set. Refer following commits for the menu governor changes.commit
9908859acaa9("cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration")
commit6dbf5cea05a7("cpuidle: menu: Avoid taking spinlock for accessing QoS values")Signed-off-by Ramesh Thomas <[email protected]>---
v2:
- usePM_QOS_RESUME_LATENCY_NO_CONSTRAINTfor "no constraint" value Should be applied over https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10024157/drivers/cpuidle/governors/ladder.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)drivers/cpuidle/governors/ladder.c +7
-1@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@#include <linux/pm_qos.h> #include <linux/jiffies.h> #include <linux/tick.h> +#include <linux/cpu.h> #include <asm/io.h> #include <linux/uaccess.h> @@ -67,10 +68,16 @@ static int ladder_select_state(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev) {struct ladder_device *ldev =this_cpu_ptr (&ladder_devices); +struct device *device =get_cpu_device (dev->cpu);struct ladder_device_state *last_state;int last_residency, last_idx = ldev->last_state_idx;int first_idx = drv->states[0 ].flags &CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING ?1 :0 ;int latency_req =pm_qos_request (PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY ); +int resume_latency =dev_pm_qos_raw_read_value (device); + +if (resume_latency < latency_req && + resume_latency !=PM_QOS_RESUME_LATENCY_NO_CONSTRAINT ) + latency_req = resume_latency;/* Special case when user has set very strict latency requirement */ if (unlikely (latency_req ==0 )) { --
Quoted 2 lines
2.7.4
Looks good to me.
I'll queue it up if nobody objects.
Thanks,
Rafael
Quoted 63 lines · Rafael J. Wysocki
Quoted 57 lines · Ramesh Thomas
Individual CPUs may have special requirements to not enter deep idle states. For example, a CPU running real time applications would not want to enter deep idle states to avoid latency impacts. At the same time other CPUs that do not have such a requirement could allow deep idle states to save power.
This was already implemented in the menu governor. Implementing similar changes in the ladder governor which gets selected when
CONFIG_NO_HZandCONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLEare not set. Refer following commits for the menu governor changes.commit
9908859acaa9("cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration")
commit6dbf5cea05a7("cpuidle: menu: Avoid taking spinlock for accessing QoS values")Signed-off-by Ramesh Thomas <[email protected]>---
v2:
- usePM_QOS_RESUME_LATENCY_NO_CONSTRAINTfor "no constraint" value Should be applied over https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10024157/drivers/cpuidle/governors/ladder.c | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)drivers/cpuidle/governors/ladder.c +7
-1@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@#include <linux/pm_qos.h> #include <linux/jiffies.h> #include <linux/tick.h> +#include <linux/cpu.h> #include <asm/io.h> #include <linux/uaccess.h> @@ -67,10 +68,16 @@ static int ladder_select_state(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev) {struct ladder_device *ldev =this_cpu_ptr (&ladder_devices); +struct device *device =get_cpu_device (dev->cpu);struct ladder_device_state *last_state;int last_residency, last_idx = ldev->last_state_idx;int first_idx = drv->states[0 ].flags &CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING ?1 :0 ;int latency_req =pm_qos_request (PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY ); +int resume_latency =dev_pm_qos_raw_read_value (device); + +if (resume_latency < latency_req && + resume_latency !=PM_QOS_RESUME_LATENCY_NO_CONSTRAINT ) + latency_req = resume_latency;/* Special case when user has set very strict latency requirement */ if (unlikely (latency_req ==0 )) { --Quoted 2 lines
2.7.4
Looks good to me.
Quoted 2 lines
I'll queue it up if nobody objects.
Hi Rafael,
This patch would apply as is over your new PM QoS changes. If you need me to repost please let me know.
Thanks,
Ramesh