[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141110152803.GX10501@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:28:03 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
nicolas.pitre@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
patches@...aro.org, lenb@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/6] sched: idle: cpuidle: Check the latency req
before idle
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:12:47PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> All this is to remove the poll idle state from the x86 cpuidle driver in
> order to remove the CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START (this one forces to write
> always ugly code in the cpuidle framework).
>
> This poll state introduces the CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START macro. If you look
> at the different governors and the code, you can checkout what kind of
> tricks this macro introduces and how that makes the code ugly.
>
> For the sake of what ? Just a small optimization in the menu governor.
>
> I suppose that has been introduce and then evolved on a wrong basis. So now
> we have to deal with that.
>
> This patchset provides a first round of cleanup around the poll function,
> the next patchset will move the 5us timer optimization from the menu
> governor and the last patchset will remove the CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START
> ugly macro.
I don't get it, I've clearly not stared at it long enough, but why is
that STATE_START crap needed anywhere?
To me it appears 'natural' to have a latency_req==0 state, why does it
need so much special casing?
--
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