Hi Sudeep, On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 02:02:12PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
[...] > >>>> On 19/05/17 17:45, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >>>>> Some hardware have clusters with different idle states. The current > >>>>> code does > >>>>> not support this and fails as it expects all the idle states to be > >>>>> identical. > >>>>> > >>>>> Because of this, the Mediatek mtk8173 had to create the same idle state > >>>>> for a > >>>>> big.Little system and now the Hisilicon 960 is facing the same > >>>>> situation. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> While I agree the we don't support them today, it's better to benchmark > >>>> and record/compare the gain we get with the support for cluster based > >>>> idle states. > >>> > >>> Sorry, I don't get what you are talking about. What do you want to > >>> benchmark ? Cluster idling ? > >>> > >> > >> OK, I was not so clear. I had a brief chat with Lorenzo, we have few > >> reason to have this support: > >> 1. Different number of states between clusters > >> 2. Different latencies(this is the one I was referring above, generally > >> we keep worst case timings here and wanted to see if any platform > >> measured improvements with different latencies in the idle states) > > > > I don't see the point. Are you putting into question the big little design? > > > > Not exactly. Since they are generally worst case number, I wanted to > check if someone saw real benefit with 2 different set of values. > Anyways that's not important or blocking, just raised a point, so that > we can stick some benchmarking results with this. In case you are interesting for Hikey960 idle states, you could see the two clustsers have different idle states: http://termbin.com/d7ed [...] Thanks, Leo Yan
