[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJvTdKmiRR9OTsxRV0OWGrYndRtcFivqnwRM+iJuD4FK3HQjZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:11:15 -0400
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
axboe@...nel.dk, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
mturquette@...aro.org,
Tuukka Tikkanen <tuukka.tikkanen@...aro.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD PATCH 02/10] cpuidle: Checking the zero latency inside the
governors does not make sense.
after the patch '[V2,1/5] sched: idle: cpuidle: Check the latency req
before idle' is applied,
this one becomes a no-op.
indeed, they'd conflict both logically and physically.
physically the check for latency_req == 0 was already removed from the
governors.
logically, the upper level, cpu_idle_loop() already invokes
cpu_idle_poll() directly
when latency_req is 0. Indeed, that would prevent the code in this
patch from running
at all, since cpu_idle_call() is no longer invoked in that case.
Further, why would
you propose invoking "use_default" instead of cpu_idle_poll() in the
latency_req == 0 case?
thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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