From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Trinabh Gupta <trinabh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>,
peterz@infradead.org, lenb@kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC V1] cpuidle: add idle routine registration and cleanup pm_idle pointer
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:34:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CBF0C04.5070705@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CBF0854.6080903@linux.intel.com>
> but now you're duplicating this functionality adding code for everyone.
>
> 99.999% of the people today run cpuidle... (especially embedded x86
> where they really care about power)
> all x86 going forward also has > 1 idle option anyway.
>
> and you're adding and extra layer in the middle that just duplicates
> the layer that's in use in practice above it.
>
> seriously, this sounds like the wrong tradeoff to make.
I think the right option is still to put cpuidle on a diet.
There's no reason an idle handler needs to be that bloated.
If it was 2K or so just including it into the core would be fine.
Ignoring code size completely is generally a wrong trade off imho.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-20 15:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-19 18:36 [RFC V1] cpuidle: add idle routine registration and cleanup pm_idle pointer Trinabh Gupta
2010-10-19 18:38 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-19 18:49 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-19 19:01 ` Trinabh Gupta
2010-10-20 15:12 ` Trinabh Gupta
2010-10-20 15:18 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 15:34 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2010-10-20 16:03 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 19:19 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2010-10-20 19:25 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 19:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-20 19:29 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 19:40 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2010-10-20 19:44 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 19:47 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-20 20:03 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2010-10-20 20:47 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 21:19 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-20 20:55 ` Dipankar Sarma
2010-10-20 15:57 ` Trinabh Gupta
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=4CBF0C04.5070705@linux.intel.com \
--to=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=trinabh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=venki@google.com \
/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.