[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601121441330.3575@nanos>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 14:42:58 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
cc: peterz@...radead.org, rafael@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle
period
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 01/08/2016 04:43 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > + /*
> > > + * Register the setup/free irq callbacks, so new interrupt or
> > > + * freed interrupt will update their tracking.
> > > + */
> > > + ret = register_irq_timings(&irqt_ops);
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + pr_err("Failed to register timings ops\n");
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> >
> > So that stuff is installed unconditionally. Is it used unconditionally as
> > well?
>
> Sorry, I am not sure to understand your question. If the kernel is compiled
> with CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_GOV_SCHED=y, this code is enabled and use the irq
> timings. The condition comes from the compilation option.
The question is whether the option also activates that thing or is there still
some /sys/whatever/idlegov magic where you can (de)select it.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists