From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle period Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:25:54 +0000 Message-ID: <56C59C32.1000903@linaro.org> References: <1455637383-14412-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1455637383-14412-2-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Vincent Guittot List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 02/17/2016 11:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [ ... ] >>> Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre >> >> Well, I'm likely overlooking something, but how is this going to be >> hooked up to the code in idle.c? > > My somewhat educated guess is that sched_idle() in your patch is > intended to replace cpuidle_idle_call(), right? Well, no. I was planning to first have it to use a different code path=20 as experimental code in order to focus improving the accuracy of the=20 prediction and then merge or replace cpuidle_idle_call() with sched_idl= e(). > If so, why do you want to replace it? > > And assuming that you have a good enough reason to do that, you need > to ensure that suspend-to-idle will work anyway. Yes, sure. --=20 Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software fo= r ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog