Re: [PATCH] CPU C-state breakage with PM Qos change

[mark gross]

On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 03:04:43PM +0100, Pihet-XID, Jean wrote:
> Looping in linux-pm
> 
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Looks like change "PM QoS: Move and rename the implementation files"
> > made pm_qos depend on CONFIG_PM which depends on
> > PM_SLEEP || PM_RUNTIME
> >
> > That breaks CPU C-states with kernels not having these CONFIGs, causing CPUs
> > to spend time in Polling loop idle instead of going into deep C-states,
> > consuming way way more power. This is with either acpi idle or intel idle
> > enabled.
> >
> > Either CONFIG_PM should be enabled with any pm_qos users or
> > the !CONFIG_PM pm_qos_request() should return sane defaults not to break
> > the existing users. Here's is the patch for the latter option.
> I think the real question is whether PM QoS should be functional in
> all cases (as is ACPI) or whether only if certain options are set
> (CONFIG_PM).
> In the current code if CONFIG_PM is not enabled, a dummy PM QoS API is
> provided as function stubs in order for the build to succeed.
> 
> Rafael, Mark,
> What do you think? Should PM QoS be enabled in all cases? Are there
> any known dependencies with CONFIG_PM?

Yes I do think pm_qos interfaces should be enabled all the time and be
independent of CONFIG_PM.  Also, I still am not a fan of the renaming
patch but, as the argument for and against renaming cannot be based on
quantifiable things I've chosen not to let it bother me.

I think Venki's change is a band aid and we should fix it right by not
having a dependency on config_pm for the interface to behave.

I'll take a look at why there is now a dependency before I have more to
say.

--mark
--
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/