[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:0.022 / U:235.856 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site