Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 8)

[mark gross]

On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 12:03:49AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 June 2010, mark gross wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:50:02PM -0700, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:05 AM, mark gross <640e9920@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:07:37AM +0200, Florian Mickler wrote:
> > > ...
> > > >> +static void update_target_val(int pm_qos_class, s32 val)
> > > >> +{
> > > >> +     s32 extreme_value;
> > > >> +     s32 new_value;
> > > >> +     extreme_value = atomic_read(&pm_qos_array[pm_qos_class]->target_value);
> > > >> +     new_value = pm_qos_array[pm_qos_class]->comparitor(val,extreme_value);
> > > >> +     if (extreme_value != new_value)
> > > >> +             atomic_set(&pm_qos_array[pm_qos_class]->target_value,new_value);
> > > >> +}
> > > >> +
> > > >
> > > > Only works 1/2 the time, but I like the idea!
> > > > It fails to get the righ answer when constraints are reduced.  But, this
> > > > idea is a good improvement i'll roll into the next pm_qos update!
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I think it would be a better idea to track your constraints with a
> > > sorted data structure. That way you can to better than O(n) for both
> > > directions. If you have a lot of constraints with the same value, it
> > > may even be worthwhile to have a two stage structure where for
> > > instance you use a rbtree for the unique values and list for identical
> > > constraints.
> > 
> > I don't agree, we went through this tree vrs list discussion a few times
> > before in other areas of the kernel.  Wherever the list tended to be
> > short, a simple list wins.  However; we can try it, after we have some
> > metrics and stress test cases identified we can measure its effectivenes
> > against.
> 
> How many different values are there to handle?
>

for the current pm_qos users its tiny.  I've never heard of more than a
few < 10.  However; for the new "interactive" class to provide suspend
blocker functionality, I expect the number to be up to 20.

but realistically I bet we never get more than 10ish.

One constraint constraint request per module from isr to user mode.
Once in user mode there would be only a few (assuming Android user
space) I think just from the power HAL, input HAL, and the RIL.

Still a pretty small number I don't think we need to worry about scaling
as much as we need to worry about performance.

--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/