[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D2F1E84.2000200@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:47:16 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Trinabh Gupta <trinabh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: peterz@...radead.org, lenb@...nel.org, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, venki@...gle.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 3/3] cpuidle: default idle driver for x86
On 1/13/2011 4:52 AM, Trinabh Gupta wrote:
> This default cpuidle_driver parses idle= boot parameters, selects
> the optimal idle routine for x86 during bootup and registers with
> cpuidle. The code for idle routines and the selection of optimal
> routine is moved from arch/x86/kernel/process.c . At module_init this
> default driver is registered with cpuidle and for non ACPI platforms
> it continues to be used. For ACPI platforms, acpi_idle driver would
> replace this driver at a later point in time during bootup. Until
> this driver's registration, architecture supplied compile time
> default idle routine is called from within cpuidle_idle_call().
>
I like the general approach, but I'd think making idle drivers modular
is going one step too far....
that looks like waaay overkill to me (also since most of the actual idle
handlers are so small
that the overhead of the exported symbols alone is bigger than the idle
handlers)
--
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