linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] cpuidle future and improvements

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]

Message-ID: <CAMQu2gz8aGC1DeOvWNNPaaMD9eJLuiJ5HGoKe98EDtV73_QRTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:28:09 +0530
From:	"Shilimkar, Santosh" <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:	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>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
	Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
	Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rob Lee <rob.lee@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] cpuidle future and improvements

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:00 PM, a0393909 <santosh.shilimkar@...com> wrote:
> Daniel,
>
>
> On 06/18/2012 02:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Another thing which we discussed is bringing the CPU cluster/package
> notion in the core idle code. Couple idle did bring that idea to some
> extent but in can be further extended and abstracted. Atm, most of
> the work is done in back-end cpuidle drivers which can be easily
> abstracted if the "cluster idle" notion is supported in the core layer.
>
Are you considering the "cluster idle" as one of the topic ?

Regards
Santosh
--
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/