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: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:40:45 +0200 From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> To: linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Lists Linaro-dev <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> CC: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>, Deepthi Dharwar <deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>, Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>, Rob Lee <rob.lee@...aro.org>, rjw@...k.pl, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org Subject: cpuidle future and improvements Dear all, A few weeks ago, Peter De Schrijver proposed a patch [1] to allow per cpu latencies. We had a discussion about this patchset because it reverse the modifications Deepthi did some months ago [2] and we may want to provide a different implementation. The Linaro Connect [3] event bring us the opportunity to meet people involved in the power management and the cpuidle area for different SoC. With the Tegra3 and big.LITTLE architecture, making per cpu latencies for cpuidle is vital. Also, the SoC vendors would like to have the ability to tune their cpu latencies through the device tree. We agreed in the following steps: 1. factor out / cleanup the cpuidle code as much as possible 2. better sharing of code amongst SoC idle drivers by moving common bits to core code 3. make the cpuidle_state structure contain only data 4. add a API to register latencies per cpu These four steps impacts all the architecture. I began the factor out code / cleanup [4] and that has been accepted upstream and I proposed some modifications [5] but I had a very few answers. The patch review are very slow and done at the last minute at the merge window and that makes code upstreaming very difficult. It is not a reproach, it is just how it is and I would like to propose a solution for that. I propose to host a cpuidle-next tree where all these modifications will be and where people can send patches against, preventing last minutes conflicts and perhaps Lenb will agree to pull from this tree. In the meantime, the tree will be part of the linux-next, the patches will be more widely tested and could be fixed earlier. Thanks -- Daniel [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/491257/ [2] http://lwn.net/Articles/464808/ [3] http://summit.linaro.org/ [4] http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@vger.kernel.org/msg67033.html, http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pm/msg27330.html, http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/76311, http://www.digipedia.pl/usenet/thread/18885/11795/ [5] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/8/375 -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- 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