lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:25:54 +0000 From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org> Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle period On 02/17/2016 11:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [ ... ] >>> Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org> >> >> Well, I'm likely overlooking something, but how is this going to be >> hooked up to the code in idle.c? > > My somewhat educated guess is that sched_idle() in your patch is > intended to replace cpuidle_idle_call(), right? Well, no. I was planning to first have it to use a different code path as experimental code in order to focus improving the accuracy of the prediction and then merge or replace cpuidle_idle_call() with sched_idle(). > If so, why do you want to replace it? > > And assuming that you have a good enough reason to do that, you need > to ensure that suspend-to-idle will work anyway. Yes, sure. -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists