[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56C59C32.1000903@linaro.org>
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