Thread (5 messages) 5 messages, 3 authors, 2011-01-10

[PATCH 2/3] perf: add OMAP support for the new power events

From: Thomas Renninger <hidden>
Date: 2011-01-10 14:14:45
Also in: linux-omap, linux-perf-users, lkml

Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)

On Wednesday 05 January 2011 12:05:18 Jean Pihet wrote:
Hi Paul,

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Paul Walmsley [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hello Jean,

On Tue, 4 Jan 2011, jean.pihet at newoldbits.com wrote:
quoted
From: Jean Pihet <redacted>

The patch adds the new power management trace points for
the OMAP architecture.

The trace points are for:
- default idle handler. Since the cpuidle framework is
  instrumented in the generic way there is no need to
  add trace points in the OMAP specific cpuidle handler;
- cpufreq (DVFS),
- clocks changes (enable, disable, set_rate),
A question about these.  Are these only meant to track calls to these
functions from outside the clock code?  Or meant to track actual hardware
clock changes?
The former: this is used to track the clock requests from outside the
clock framework.
quoted
If the latter, then it might make sense to put these
trace points into the functions that actually change the hardware
registers, e.g., omap2_dflt_clk_{enable,disable}(), etc., since a
clk_enable() on a leaf clock may result in many internal system clocks
being enabled up the clock tree.
I agree with you it is better to track the actual clock changes instead.
I propose to move the tracepoints to omap2_clk_{enable...} which
enables all the clocks irrespectively of the installed handler.
Note about the clock handlers: omap2_dflt_clk_enable happens to be the
handler for all controllable clocks but could that change in the
future?
Looks like there is cpuidle34xx using cpuidle framework on specific boards
only.
And pm34xx.c and others override pm_idle and use the same low level
functions to reduce power consumption as cpuidle34xx.
Ideally pm34xx.c (and others) would not override pm_idle, but register as
a cpuidle driver. Then the idle events would be tracked by the
cpuidle subsystem automatically (with my latest patches).
But this would be a more intrusive change (are there efforts to do that?).
Even if it should happen at some point, adding some additional events for
people to better debug/monitor the stuff now does not hurt.

    Thomas
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help