[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54F79A42.9070801@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 07:50:26 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] intel_idle: Add ->enter_freeze callbacks
On 2015/2/13 0:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, February 12, 2015 02:26:43 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> Why bother with enter_freeze() for any but the deepest state (C6 in this
>> case)?
>
> User space may disable the deepest one (and any of them in general) via sysfs
> and there's no good reason to ignore its choice in this particular case while
> we're honoring it otherwise.
>
> So the logic is basically "find the deepest one which isn't disabled" and
> setting the pointers costs us nothing really.
>
If the user has chance to disable C6 via /sys, that means c6 works?
Shouldn't we ignore user space setting during freeze? Otherwise, we will
lost S0ix?
Thanks,
-Aubrey
--
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