From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jacob Pan Subject: Re: [PATCH] idle, thermal, acpi: Remove home grown idle implementations Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 08:47:42 -0700 Message-ID: <20140606084742.1ff06c12@ultegra> References: <20140604085418.GA11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140604015812.140a00d1@jacob-desktop> <20140605065520.GB3213@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:49279 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751692AbaFFPsG (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2014 11:48:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140605065520.GB3213@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, rui.zhang@intel.com, luto@amacapital.net On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:55:20 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 01:58:12AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 10:54:18 +0200 > > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm still sitting on this patch. Jacub you were going to make it > > > play nice with QoS? > > > > > I had a patchset to work through system PM QOS and still maintain > > the idle injection efficiency. When I saw you did not merge the > > patch below, I thought you have abandoned it :) > > I was waiting for you to do the QoS bits :-) > > > The only issue as per our last discussion is the lack of > > notification when PM QOS cannot be met. But that is intrinsic to PM > > QOS itself. > > > > I also consulted with Arjan and looked at directly intercept with > > intel_idle since both intel_powerclamp and intel_idle are arch > > specific drivers. But I think that is hard to do at per idle period > > basis, since we should still allow "natural" idle during the forced > > idle time. > > > > So, I think we can take a two stepped approach, > > 1. integrate your patch with a > > updated version of https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/26/534 such that > > there is no performance/efficiency regression. > > 2. add notification mechanism to system qos when constraints cannot > > be met. > > That's fine with me; can you respin those bits? yes, working on it. it may take some time since lots of testing needed. will include acpipad as well.