On 07/29/2013 08:23 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 07/29/2013 04:39 PM, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> On 07/27/2013 10:57 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 07/23/2013 11:01 AM, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
>>>> This patch implements a back-end cpuidle driver for
>>>> powernv calling power7_nap and snooze idle states.
>>>> This can be extended by adding more idle states
>>>> in the future to the existing framework.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Deepthi Dharwar <deep...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>>> +static int snooze_loop(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>>>> + struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
>>>> + int index)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int cpu = dev->cpu;
>>>> +
>>>> + local_irq_enable();
>>>> + set_thread_flag(TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG);
>>>> +
>>>> + while ((!need_resched()) && cpu_online(cpu)) {
>>>> + ppc64_runlatch_off();
>>>> + HMT_very_low();
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> Why are you using the cpu_online test here ?
>>
>> Snooze state is an idle state where cpu executes an infinite loop by
>> reducing the priority of the thread and the idle cpu can come out of it
>> only if need_resched is set or in case the cpu is offlined. In order to
>> continue executing this loop to remain in this idle state, we need the
>> check just to be safe.
>
> Yes, but if the cpu is offline you are no longer executing this code, no ?
>
Yes, not needed.
Thanks !
Deepthi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
