[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] cpuidle: allow per cpu latencies
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:14:27AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 05:34 PM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe we also want to make the 'disabled' flag per CPU then or provide some
> >> other way the number of C states can be different per CPU?
> >
> > What do you think about this? Do we also want to make the disabled flag per
> > CPU? Or how should we deal with a different number of C states per CPU?
> Hi Peter,
> yes, that could makes sense. But in most of the architecture, this is
> not needed, so duplicating the state's array and latencies is unneeded
> memory consumption.
> Maybe we can look for a COW approach, similar to what is done for the
> nsproxy structure, no ?

That could be easily solved by just having a pointer to the state table in the
per CPU datastructure I think?



 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-19 12:27    [W:0.046 / U:9.340 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site