Re: [RFC 1/2] Modular acpi_idle policy

[Dominik Brodowski <linux-X3ehHDuj6sIIGcDfoQAp7OTW4wlIGRCZ@public.gmane.org>]

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:12:53PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> Modular C-state policy. And convert current algorithm to the framework.
> This is the updated patch I sent out to the list several months ago.
> Next patch will use the framework.

Have you reviewed my patches I sent to this list on 2005-12-31 yet? As they
touch a lot of this code _and_ (partly) make sense for _all_ C-state
policies, please consider merging them first before these patches.

> -	/*
> -	 * Check BM Activity
> -	 * -----------------
> -	 * Check for bus mastering activity (if required), record, and check
> -	 * for demotion.
> -	 */

Whatever the C-State policy is, we need to track the BM activity.

> +	cx = current_policy->pre_cx(pr);
> +	if (cx != pr->power.state)
> +		acpi_processor_power_activate(pr, cx);


> @@ -320,18 +256,19 @@ static void acpi_processor_idle(void)
>  		 *      go to an ISR rather than here.  Need to instrument
>  		 *      base interrupt handler.
>  		 */
> -		sleep_ticks = 0xFFFFFFFF;
> +		t2 = read_acpi_pmtimer();
> +		sleep_ticks = ticks_elapsed(t1, t2);

This result may be _very_ wrong, at least with preemption enabled...

> +	/* FIXME: we have trouble in MP case here */
Please solve it first before merging, there are MP systems using ACPI
C-States AFAICS...

> +static struct acpi_processor_cx* dfl_cstate_pre_cx(struct acpi_processor *pr)

This one misses important policy updates (see my mails to this mailing list
2005-12-31).

> +	/* FIXME: we currently only support one extra policy */

And please provide for multiple extra policies, as unless Thomas, you and I
can agree on two policies, there'll be three ;-)


Thanks,
	Dominik
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html