[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54F79EA6.2030605@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:09:10 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
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 2015/3/5 8:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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.
>
okay, make sense to me. 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