linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V1] cpuidle: add idle routine registration and cleanup pm

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:34:28 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	Trinabh Gupta <trinabh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
	lenb@...nel.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC V1] cpuidle: add idle routine registration and cleanup pm_idle
 pointer


> but now you're duplicating this functionality adding code for everyone.
>
> 99.999% of the people today run cpuidle... (especially embedded x86 
> where they really care about power)
> all x86 going forward also has > 1 idle option anyway.
>
> and you're adding and extra layer in the middle that just duplicates 
> the layer that's in use in practice above it.
>
> seriously, this sounds like the wrong tradeoff to make.

I think the right option is still to put cpuidle on a diet.
There's no reason an idle handler needs to be that bloated.

If it was 2K or so just including it into the core would be fine.

Ignoring code size completely is generally a wrong trade off imho.

-Andi
--
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/