[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170718163629.cinz7my6caxlcasa@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 18:36:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>, len.brown@...el.com,
rjw@...ysocki.net, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
yang.zhang.wz@...il.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/11] Create fast idle path for short idle periods
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 08:29:40AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> the most obvious way to do this (for me, maybe I'm naive) is to add another
> C state, lets call it "C1-lite" with its own thresholds and power levels etc,
> and just let that be picked naturally based on the heuristics.
> (if we want to improve the heuristics, that's fine and always welcome but that
> is completely orthogonal in my mind)
C1-lite would then have a threshold < C1, whereas I understood the
desire to be for the fast-idle crud to have a larger threshold than C1
currently has.
That is, from what I understood, they want C1 selected *longer*.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists