From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arun R Bharadwaj Subject: Re: [v8 PATCH 2/8]: cpuidle: implement a list based approach to register a set of idle routines. Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:47:27 +0530 Message-ID: <20091014061727.GA8605@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20091008094828.GA20595@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20091008095027.GC20595@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1254998162.26976.270.camel@twins> <20091008104249.GJ20595@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1254999033.26976.272.camel@twins> <8763akh4re.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Reply-To: arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8763akh4re.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppd-linuxppc64-dev=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Arun Bharadwaj , Ingo Molnar , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Arjan van de Ven List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org * Andi Kleen [2009-10-12 20:00:05]: > Peter Zijlstra writes: > > > > So does it make sense to have a set of sets? > > > > Why not integrate them all into one set to be ruled by this governor > > thing? > > cpuidle is currently optional, that is why the two level hierarchy > is there so that you can still have simple idle selection without it. > > % size drivers/cpuidle/*.o > text data bss dec hex filename > 5514 1416 44 6974 1b3e drivers/cpuidle/built-in.o > > Adding it unconditionally would add ~7k to everyone who wants idle functions. > > I think making it unconditional would require putting it on a serious > diet first. > Hi Andi, Yes, this is a valid point. How about something like this.. If the arch does not enable CONFIG_CPU_IDLE, the cpuidle_idle_call which is called from cpu_idle() should call default_idle without involving the registering cpuidle steps. This should prevent bloating up of the kernel for archs which dont want to use cpuidle. --arun > -Andi > -- > ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp02.in.ibm.com ([59.145.155.2]:43446 "EHLO e28smtp02.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751875AbZJNGSJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:18:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:47:27 +0530 From: Arun R Bharadwaj Subject: Re: [v8 PATCH 2/8]: cpuidle: implement a list based approach to register a set of idle routines. Message-ID: <20091014061727.GA8605@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20091008094828.GA20595@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20091008095027.GC20595@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1254998162.26976.270.camel@twins> <20091008104249.GJ20595@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1254999033.26976.272.camel@twins> <8763akh4re.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8763akh4re.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andi Kleen Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Ingo Molnar , Vaidyanathan Srinivasan , Dipankar Sarma , Balbir Singh , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Arun Bharadwaj Message-ID: <20091014061727.jsf-lEx3qa7iiTz-N5RwE-JacP4t3QFHMab0Z2eJBk4@z> * Andi Kleen [2009-10-12 20:00:05]: > Peter Zijlstra writes: > > > > So does it make sense to have a set of sets? > > > > Why not integrate them all into one set to be ruled by this governor > > thing? > > cpuidle is currently optional, that is why the two level hierarchy > is there so that you can still have simple idle selection without it. > > % size drivers/cpuidle/*.o > text data bss dec hex filename > 5514 1416 44 6974 1b3e drivers/cpuidle/built-in.o > > Adding it unconditionally would add ~7k to everyone who wants idle functions. > > I think making it unconditional would require putting it on a serious > diet first. > Hi Andi, Yes, this is a valid point. How about something like this.. If the arch does not enable CONFIG_CPU_IDLE, the cpuidle_idle_call which is called from cpu_idle() should call default_idle without involving the registering cpuidle steps. This should prevent bloating up of the kernel for archs which dont want to use cpuidle. --arun > -Andi > -- > ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.