[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1404181159010.980@knanqh.ubzr>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 12:00:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, rjw@...ysocki.net,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, alex.shi@...aro.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHC 3/3] sched/fair: use the idle state info to choose
the idlest cpu
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 04/18/2014 02:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I suppose so; its still a bit like we won't but we will :-)
> >
> > So we _will_ actually expose coupled C states through the topology bits,
> > that's good.
>
> Ah, ok. I think I understood where the confusion is coming from.
>
> A couple of definitions for the same thing :)
>
> 1. Coupled C-states : *mechanism* implemented in the cpuidle framework:
> drivers/cpuidle/coupled.c
>
> 2. Coupled C-states : *constraint* to reach a cluster power down state, will
> be described through the topology and could be implemented by different
> mechanism (MCPM, handmade sync, cpuidle-coupled-c-state, firmware).
>
> We want to expose 2. not 1. to the scheduler.
I couldn't explain it better.
Sorry for creating confusion.
Nicolas
--
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