[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091206051928.GA18300@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:49:28 +0530
From: Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
Arun Bharadwaj <arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [v10 PATCH 2/9]: cpuidle: cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
* Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de> [2009-12-04 23:20:00]:
> On Wednesday 02 December 2009, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
> > * Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2009-12-02 15:24:27]:
> >
> > This patch cleans up drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> > Earlier cpuidle assumed pm_idle as the default idle loop. Break that
> > assumption and make it more generic.
>
> Is there a problem with the old pm_idle? Couldn't it be integrated more
> transparently, instead of replacing it this intrusively?
>
Hi Torsten,
Peter objected to the idea of integrating this with the old pm_idle
because it has already caused a lot of problems on x86 and we wouldn't
want to be doing the same mistake on POWER. The discussion related to
that could be found here http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/26/233
> > --- linux.trees.git.orig/include/linux/cpuidle.h
> > +++ linux.trees.git/include/linux/cpuidle.h
> > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ struct cpuidle_state {
> > unsigned long long usage;
> > unsigned long long time; /* in US */
> >
> > - int (*enter) (struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > + void (*enter) (struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > struct cpuidle_state *state);
> > };
>
> While it may be a good idea to move the residency calculation to one central
> place, at least in theory a cpuidle_state->enter() function could have a
> better method to determine its value.
>
This would mean a lot of code replication, which Pavel pointed out in
the previous iteration. So I moved the residency calculation to a
central place.
> Either way you're implicitly introducing an API change here, and you're at
> least missing two functions on ARM and SuperH, respectively. Could you
> separate this API change out, and not take it for granted in the other
> patches?
>
> Torsten
--
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