[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58840B80.7000808@linaro.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 09:31:44 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpuidle/menu: add per cpu pm_qos_resume_latency
consideration
> Yeah, that could be problematic. The code snippet gives the general idea but it
> could be changed by for example by a flag telling the cpus when they enter idle
> to update their state_count. Or something like that.
Yes, this idea could be helpful.
But since the idle path isn't a hot path. and a few memory access won't
cost a lot. So I doubt if the benefit could be measurable.
>
> But if you think the patchset is fine, it is ok, we can improve things afterwards.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists