| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2011 12:17:43 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Trinabh Gupta <trinabh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: arjan@...ux.intel.com, 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 PATCH V3 2/3] cpuidle: list based cpuidle driver registration and selection On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 16:22 +0530, Trinabh Gupta wrote: > A cpuidle_driver is global in nature as it provides routines > for all the CPUS. Each CPU registered with the cpuidle subsystem is > represented as a cpuidle_device. A cpuidle_device structure > points to the low level idle routines for that CPU provided by > a certain driver. In other words, a cpuidle driver creates a > cpuidle_device structure for each CPU that it registers with the > cpuidle subsystem. Whenever cpuidle idle loop is called, the cpuidle > subsystem picks the cpuidle_device structure for that cpu and > calls one of the low level idle routines through that structure. Why all this per-cpu nonsense? I thought we all agreed that ACPI tables specifying non-uniform C states were considered buggy and we should simply use the intersection of all cpus. -- 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