From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix idle notifier not being called in CONFIG_X86_32 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 11:36:27 +0100 Message-ID: <20130306103627.GC16827@gmail.com> References: <1362375673-29287-1-git-send-email-illyas.mansoor@intel.com> <20130306101818.GA6587@gmail.com> <810586B7581CC8469141DADEBC37191224F77316@BGSMSX102.gar.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f50.google.com ([74.125.83.50]:41782 "EHLO mail-ee0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754166Ab3CFKgc (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Mar 2013 05:36:32 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <810586B7581CC8469141DADEBC37191224F77316@BGSMSX102.gar.corp.intel.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Mansoor, Illyas" , Peter Zijlstra Cc: Linux Kernel , Linux PM , Frederic Weisbecker , Ingo Molnar , X86 , Len Brown , Thomas Gleixner , Matthew Garrett , Tejun Heo , "Paul E. McKenney" , "Rudramuni, Vishwesh M" , "richard@nod.at" , "josh@joshtriplett.org" , "Kumar P, Mahesh" , "Sil, Dyut K" , Arjan van de Ven * Mansoor, Illyas wrote: > > * Illyas Mansoor wrote: > > > > > Idle notifier not registered if CONFIG_X86_32 is defined, those > > > callbacks are empty for X86_32 platform. > > > > > > ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 > > > void enter_idle(void); > > > void exit_idle(void); > > > else > > > static inline void enter_idle(void) { } static inline void > > > exit_idle(void) { } static inline void __exit_idle(void) { } endif > > > > > > Make this work on X86_32 platforms by > > > removing the restriction for X86_64 > > > > What will they be used for? > > It's being used by interactive governor, and since the idle notifications are not > received It breaks the governor functionality on X86_32 But we never allowed idle notifiers on 32-bit and wanted to phase them out even on x86-64 as well. There's ongoing work to improve power saving in the scheduler - see Alex Shi's patchset on lkml: I think the two pieces of code should cooperate within the scheduler instead of going in two directions, duplicating effort and getting in each other's way ... Thanks, Ingo