[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081024120544.GA9812@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:05:44 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
Cc: Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] SGI X86 UV: Provide a System Activity Indicator
driver
* Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz> wrote:
> On Fri 2008-10-24 04:19:04, Mike Travis wrote:
> > [Ingo - could you let me know what's holding up this driver?
> > Thanks!, Mike]
>
> I thought that...
>
> > +static __init void uv_scir_register_cpu_notifier(void)
> > +{
> > + hotcpu_notifier(uv_scir_cpu_notify, 0);
> > + idle_notifier_register(&uv_idle_notifier);
> > +}
>
> ...Ingo said that idle_notifier_register is deprecated and going away?
yes, but i suspect Mike noticed that i acked Len's use of idle notifiers
in the ACPI tree, and now he wants to refresh this discussion?
i cannot really believe why anyone would want to slow down the from-idle
hotpath in such a lame way:
+ } else if (action == IDLE_END) {
+
+ uv_hub_info->scir.state |= SCIR_CPU_ACTIVITY;
+ uv_hub_info->scir.idle_off += elapsed;
+ uv_hub_info->scir.last = jiffies;
+ }
with such a lame and low-res timestamp:
+ unsigned long elapsed = jiffies - uv_hub_info->scir.last;
it's an absolutely pointless act of adding overhead. Just use a regular
timer mechanism to update uv_hub_info->scir.idle_off.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists