From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: [patch 00/34] idle: Consolidate idle implementations Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:19:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20130329161905.GC6201@merkur.ravnborg.org> References: <20130321214930.752934102@linutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130321214930.752934102@linutronix.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Rusty Russell , Paul McKenney , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , "Srivatsa S. Bhat" , Magnus Damm List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 09:52:56PM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Each architecture implements its own cpu_idle() code, which is more or > less the same on all architectures (plus/minus a few bugs and a few > missing extra functionalities, instrumentation ...). That also forces > everyone who is interested in idle related features to add new > functionality to every architecture. What a waste. > > Aside of that pointless code duplicaiton the ongoing quest to > consolidate the cpu hotplug code needs a common entry point for the > non boot cpus. > > The following series implements a generic idle function and converts > most architectures over. I left out SPARC (it involves sparc asm) and > UM (it made me barf). If we can move those architectures as well, we > can get rid of the extra config switch and have everything > consolidated. > > I spent a lot of time to make sure that the conversion preserved the > non obvious differences of the architecture implementations, but I > really need help from the affected maintainers to prove the > correctness. Hi Thomas. Where can I find the git tree with the latest patches? Or do you plan to submit a v2 soon? Sam From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.snhosting.dk ([87.238.248.203]:14953 "EHLO smtp.domainteam.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754320Ab3C2QTH (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:19:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:19:05 +0100 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: [patch 00/34] idle: Consolidate idle implementations Message-ID: <20130329161905.GC6201@merkur.ravnborg.org> References: <20130321214930.752934102@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130321214930.752934102@linutronix.de> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Rusty Russell , Paul McKenney , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , "Srivatsa S. Bhat" , Magnus Damm Message-ID: <20130329161905.Irv-pDQbLzFHOXyTU4OsFqALfZvEcGLvwbK9In1UFbE@z> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 09:52:56PM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Each architecture implements its own cpu_idle() code, which is more or > less the same on all architectures (plus/minus a few bugs and a few > missing extra functionalities, instrumentation ...). That also forces > everyone who is interested in idle related features to add new > functionality to every architecture. What a waste. > > Aside of that pointless code duplicaiton the ongoing quest to > consolidate the cpu hotplug code needs a common entry point for the > non boot cpus. > > The following series implements a generic idle function and converts > most architectures over. I left out SPARC (it involves sparc asm) and > UM (it made me barf). If we can move those architectures as well, we > can get rid of the extra config switch and have everything > consolidated. > > I spent a lot of time to make sure that the conversion preserved the > non obvious differences of the architecture implementations, but I > really need help from the affected maintainers to prove the > correctness. Hi Thomas. Where can I find the git tree with the latest patches? Or do you plan to submit a v2 soon? Sam