[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2502414.MyBzvuWGMR@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 01:18:38 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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 Thursday, March 05, 2015 07:50:26 AM Li, Aubrey wrote:
> 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?
We can't ignore it, because we don't know the reason why the state was
disabled.
It may just not work reliably enough on the given platform.
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, 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