[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52FA59E2.1000802@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:12:02 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Preeti Murthy <preeti.lkml@...il.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] idle: store the idle state index in the struct
rq
On 2/11/2014 8:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:17:47AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On 2/3/2014 6:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> if there's a simple api like
>>
>> sched_cpu_cache_wiped(int llc)
>>
>> that would be very nice for this; the menuidle side knows this
>> for some cases and thus can just call it. This would be a very
>> small and minimal change
>>
>> * if you don't care about llc vs core local caches then that
>> parameter can go away
>>
>> * I assume this is also called for the local cpu... if not then we
>> need to add a cpu number argument
>>
>> * we can also call this from architecture code when wbinvd or the
>> arm equivalent is called etc
>
> A little something like so?
>
is there value also in doing a cpu level cache flush?
(cpu cache flush we know from the C state, for the llc cache flush we need to read an MSR
on x86. Not insane expensive but not zero either)
--
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