lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [v8 PATCH 2/8]: cpuidle: implement a list based approach to register a set of idle routines.
    From
    Date
    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 enable/disable stuff about?

    > Also, the way governor works is that, it assumes that idle routines
    > are indexed in the increasing order of power benefit that can be got
    > out of the state. So this would get messed up.

    Right, which is why I initially had a power-savings field in my
    proposal, so it could weight the power savings vs the wakeup latency.

    http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/27/159

    There it was said that was exactly what these governors were doing,
    seems its not.

    > > Sounds like something is wrong alright. If you can register an idle
    > > routine you should be able to unregister it too.
    > >
    >
    > Yes, we can register and unregister in a clean way now.
    > Consider this. We have a set of routines A, B, C currently registered.
    > Now a module comes and registers D and E, and later on at some point
    > of time wants to unregister. So how do you keep track of what all idle
    > routines the module registered and unregister only those?
    > Best way to do that is a stack, which is how I have currently
    > implemented.

    Right, so destroy that inner set thing, that way we only have one
    left ;-)



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-08 14:29    [W:3.565 / U:1.648 seconds]
    ©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site