* Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org [2009-10-14 09:18:38]:
How about something like this..
If the arch does not enable CONFIG_CPU_IDLE, the cpuidle_idle_call
which is called from cpu_idle() should call default_idle without
involving the registering cpuidle steps. This should prevent bloating
* Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org [2009-10-12 20:00:05]:
Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl writes:
So does it make sense to have a set of sets?
Why not integrate them all into one set to be ruled by this governor
thing?
cpuidle is currently optional, that is why the two level
How about something like this..
If the arch does not enable CONFIG_CPU_IDLE, the cpuidle_idle_call
which is called from cpu_idle() should call default_idle without
involving the registering cpuidle steps. This should prevent bloating
up of the kernel for archs which dont want to use cpuidle.
Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl writes:
So does it make sense to have a set of sets?
Why not integrate them all into one set to be ruled by this governor
thing?
cpuidle is currently optional, that is why the two level hierarchy
is there so that you can still have simple idle selection
* Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl [2009-10-08 14:25:37]:
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 17:31 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
Uhm, no, it would mean ACPI putting its idle routines on the same level
as all others.
Putting them all on the same level would mean, we need an
* Arun R Bharadwaj a...@linux.vnet.ibm.com [2009-10-08 15:18:28]:
Implement a list based registering mechanism for architectures which
have multiple sets of idle routines which are to be registered.
Currently, in x86 it is done by merely setting pm_idle = idle_routine
and managing this pm_idle
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 15:20 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
* Arun R Bharadwaj a...@linux.vnet.ibm.com [2009-10-08 15:18:28]:
Implement a list based registering mechanism for architectures which
have multiple sets of idle routines which are to be registered.
Currently, in x86 it is done by
* Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl [2009-10-08 12:36:02]:
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 15:20 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
* Arun R Bharadwaj a...@linux.vnet.ibm.com [2009-10-08 15:18:28]:
Implement a list based registering mechanism for architectures which
have multiple sets of idle
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:12 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
So cpuidle didn't already have a list of idle functions it takes an
appropriate one from?
No.. As of now, cpuidle supported only one _set_ of idle states that
can be registered. So in this one set, it would choose the
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:31 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl [2009-10-08 12:50:33]:
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:12 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
So cpuidle didn't already have a list of idle functions it takes an
appropriate one from?
* Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl [2009-10-08 13:25:10]:
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:31 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra a.p.zijls...@chello.nl [2009-10-08 12:50:33]:
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:12 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
So cpuidle didn't already have a
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 17:31 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
Uhm, no, it would mean ACPI putting its idle routines on the same level
as all others.
Putting them all on the same level would mean, we need an
enable/disable routine to enable only the currently active routines.
What's this
12 matches
Mail list logo
