From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Seth, Rohit" Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 02:40:41 +0000 Subject: RE: [PATCH] more robust halt_light Message-Id: <01EF044AAEE12F4BAAD955CB75064943010F08FF@scsmsx401.sc.intel.com> List-Id: References: <1078336640.2480.37.camel@patsy.fc.hp.com> In-Reply-To: <1078336640.2480.37.camel@patsy.fc.hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >-----Original Message----- >From: Jesse Barnes [mailto:jbarnes@sgi.com] >Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 2:56 PM >To: davidm@hpl.hp.com >Cc: Alex Williamson; Seth, Rohit; linux-ia64 >Subject: Re: [PATCH] more robust halt_light > >On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 02:45:11PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote: >> Can we get rid of the CONFIG option too? Or do folks who care (too?) >> much about wake-up latency prefer to turn off a CONFIG option over >> booting with nohlt? > >Some people have come to me concerned about the wakeup latency of having >the halt call in there, and it also looks like the PAL has a bug on our >platform that causes hangs when we call PAL_HALT_LIGHT (which we're >tracking down), so I wouldn't mind if the config option stuck around a >little longer (or was a boot time parameter at least). > >Thanks, >Jesse As far as latency is concerned, do you have any specific workload that is getting impacted (severly) by this transition. I think we should remove the compile time CONFIG_OPTION for PAL_HALT_LIGHT. And instead use /proc interface to dynamically enable/disable the power transition.