From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpuidle/menu: stop seeking deeper idle if current state is too deep Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 10:43:59 -0500 Message-ID: <1483631039.25514.1.camel@redhat.com> References: <1483630187-29622-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org> <1483630187-29622-2-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40122 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S968105AbdAEPoC (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2017 10:44:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1483630187-29622-2-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Alex Shi , Daniel Lezcano , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , vincent.guittot@linaro.org, open list Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ulf Hansson , Rasmus Villemoes , Arjan van de Ven On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 23:29 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > The obsolete commit 71abbbf85 want to introduce a dynamic cstates, > but it was removed for long time. Just left the nonsense deeper > cstate > checking. > > Since all target_residency and exit_latency are going longer in > deeper > idle state, no needs to waste some cpu cycle on useless seeking. Makes me wonder if it would be worth documenting the requirement that c-states be listed in increasing order? Acked-by: Rik van Riel