From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A1E6C4450A for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 10:58:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=XuGqQGrV21GjVYaZtMHxkCtFSyxl6ccxDasX/4a2VJc=; b=JP+kgpHavvEkY7Si4LiTeqKuip OHefjyPJh2GuaD28xGCnZfFGD4AkquAGJSUDzFeADu7J6AhZI+rdxs46NoC8YxJ2jj+G9Xe4qfvUd wdOPT9RsNRKIFKqnT/BTkQW6KUL0b65aA7DHvU8ZT+o9O7jK807Ax07jhdDXaVsEAdICbmXQXExX3 07YhfjLWTvx3BA1iZBzC9poO/GA4tMbK/gBJvw+O/K+a5/l5nlF/UN122d3sbfrede1g0AYyTaZK6 6TsiSN6AOUWEpJ8yb0hTx3opHb9Lqf0BmP0BjNzJ/KRKMy5MV//rl735SnR+q1RvMzCMbpy/Rxmaj En2gDKQg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wkJnA-0000000H4yP-08q3; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 10:58:12 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c04:e001:324:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wkJn9-0000000H4yA-291T for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 10:58:11 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA56260054; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 10:58:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC2121F000E9; Thu, 16 Jul 2026 10:58:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784199490; bh=XuGqQGrV21GjVYaZtMHxkCtFSyxl6ccxDasX/4a2VJc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=R8mX7CnE7NTo1y4pcYLyuJEjGUSoNWuer6ncwtUmHFXaDNyjKp06mkVAuyTy5/1SU 1aqGggkpzsn6iGvzdzzNbypBry9xf3sR+kxJUxMSNB6bd/vEtuQNc3wBsylVHQ/JWy HHUSwdptbZGze6sGIfcmEk/DQnvjoQNZX0IIDXJuwm81KIsVGiluHcit8VTTrHtw9r BYBTnU+z4S+NdVge/SfMkWi1btVEFG+/YakVd7fqMVI72+vSBQbdvqwKFGi5bEt8De mbSQ0Kjg+Ko1l0DggZouEwsT+6dkqvhNXy468laKTtzXd8OiZS019B0gCgTJmOuw5b ezqjkNeUtQvVw== Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 11:58:07 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Yureka Lilian Cc: Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Anshuman Khandual , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arch: arm64: add early_param idle= Message-ID: <20260716-generous-organic-skylark-b9dfb1@sudeepholla> References: <20260711-arm64-idle-param-v2-1-0ab67652a435@cyberchaos.dev> <20260713-bulky-thistle-leopard-c66a18@sudeepholla> <5f1af8d0-ed73-4dac-9bd3-30f8e82d4b26@cyberchaos.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5f1af8d0-ed73-4dac-9bd3-30f8e82d4b26@cyberchaos.dev> X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 03:24:03PM +0200, Yureka Lilian wrote: > On 7/13/26 11:57, Sudeep Holla wrote: [...] > > > > If WFI is replaced by NOP or YIELD, do we really need to save/restore > > IRQ context used for pseudo-NMIs which may add some overhead ? > > There are optimizations, even in the ARM64_IDLE_WFI case, which could be > done here, such as checking that an interrupt actually occurred before > continuing (and repeating the wfi/yield/nop until this is the case). I would > prefer not to do these optimizations in this patch series, and leave it as > future work, because I don't understand all the implications at this point. > Is this acceptable for you? > Sure, I am fine with that. Anyways it is left to the maintainers. -- Regards, Sudeep