From: Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@s>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v6 PATCH 0/7]: cpuidle/x86/POWER: Cleanup idle power management code in x86, cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c and introduce cpuidle to POWER.
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:42:41 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090924051238.GA5963@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090922112526.GA7788@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2009-09-22 16:55:27]:
Hi Len, (or other acpi folks),
I had a question regarding ACPI-cpuidle interaction in the current
implementation.
Currently, every cpu (i.e. acpi_processor) registers to cpuidle as
a cpuidle_device. So every cpu has to go through the process of
setting up the idle states and then registering as a cpuidle device.
What exactly is the reason behind this?
Is this really necessary or can we have a system-wide one-time registering
to cpuidle by ACPI?
I'm currently in the process of enabling cpuidle for POWER systems and
find that having a system-wide registering mechanism to be a cleaner
design.
--arun
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>,
Arun Bharadwaj <arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v6 PATCH 0/7]: cpuidle/x86/POWER: Cleanup idle power management code in x86, cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c and introduce cpuidle to POWER.
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:42:41 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090924051238.GA5963@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090922112526.GA7788@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2009-09-22 16:55:27]:
Hi Len, (or other acpi folks),
I had a question regarding ACPI-cpuidle interaction in the current
implementation.
Currently, every cpu (i.e. acpi_processor) registers to cpuidle as
a cpuidle_device. So every cpu has to go through the process of
setting up the idle states and then registering as a cpuidle device.
What exactly is the reason behind this?
Is this really necessary or can we have a system-wide one-time registering
to cpuidle by ACPI?
I'm currently in the process of enabling cpuidle for POWER systems and
find that having a system-wide registering mechanism to be a cleaner
design.
--arun
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Joel Schopp <jschopp@austin.ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>,
Arun Bharadwaj <arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v6 PATCH 0/7]: cpuidle/x86/POWER: Cleanup idle power management code in x86, cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c and introduce cpuidle to POWER.
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:42:41 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090924051238.GA5963@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090922112526.GA7788@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
* Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2009-09-22 16:55:27]:
Hi Len, (or other acpi folks),
I had a question regarding ACPI-cpuidle interaction in the current
implementation.
Currently, every cpu (i.e. acpi_processor) registers to cpuidle as
a cpuidle_device. So every cpu has to go through the process of
setting up the idle states and then registering as a cpuidle device.
What exactly is the reason behind this?
Is this really necessary or can we have a system-wide one-time registering
to cpuidle by ACPI?
I'm currently in the process of enabling cpuidle for POWER systems and
find that having a system-wide registering mechanism to be a cleaner
design.
--arun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-24 5:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-22 11:25 [v6 PATCH 0/7]: cpuidle/x86/POWER: Cleanup idle power management code in x86, cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c and introduce cpuidle to POWER Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:25 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:27 ` [v6 PATCH 1/7]: cpuidle: cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:27 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:28 ` [v6 PATCH 2/7]: cpuidle: implement a list based approach to register a set of idle routines Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:28 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:29 ` [v6 PATCH 3/7]: x86: refactor x86 idle power management code and remove all instances of pm_idle Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:29 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:30 ` [v6 PATCH 4/7]: POWER: enable cpuidle for POWER Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:30 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:31 ` [v6 PATCH 5/7]: pSeries/cpuidle: remove dedicate/shared idle loops, which will be moved to arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/processor_idle.c Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:31 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:32 ` [v6 PATCH 6/7]: POWER: add a default_idle idle loop for POWER Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:32 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:33 ` [v6 PATCH 7/7]: pSeries: implement pSeries processor idle module Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-22 11:33 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-24 5:12 ` Arun R Bharadwaj [this message]
2009-09-24 5:12 ` [v6 PATCH 0/7]: cpuidle/x86/POWER: Cleanup idle power management code in x86, cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c and introduce cpuidle to POWER Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-24 5:12 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-24 12:22 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-09-24 12:22 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-09-25 7:06 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-09-25 7:06 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-09-25 8:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-25 8:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-25 9:35 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-09-25 9:35 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-09-25 7:20 ` Balbir Singh
2009-09-25 7:20 ` Balbir Singh
2009-09-25 7:20 ` Balbir Singh
2009-09-25 17:08 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-09-25 17:08 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090924051238.GA5963@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=jschopp@austin.ibm.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@s \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.