From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@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 09:03:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CBF12CB.9050604@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CBF0C04.5070705@linux.intel.com>
On 10/20/2010 8:34 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>> 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.
I'm not ignoring code size.
I'm saying that a 7Kb component that everyone on this architecture uses
in practice versus adding 0.5Kb in ADDITION to that for everyone for the
theoretical case
of someone NOT using cpuidle is the wrong tradeoff.
having it go on a diet? I'm all for it. Killing off the ladder governor
for example is a step.
But really. 7Kb. There's lots of lower hanging fruit as well. 7Kb is not
a reason to make such a bad tradeoff.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-20 16:03 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
2010-10-20 16:03 ` Arjan van de Ven [this message]
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=4CBF12CB.9050604@linux.intel.com \
--to=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ak@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.