From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] idle: store the idle state index in the struct
 rq
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 09:12:02 -0800
Message-ID: <52FA59E2.1000802@linux.intel.com>
References: <20140131090230.GM5002@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <52EB6F65.8050008@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <52EBBC23.8020603@linux.intel.com> <52EBC33A.6080101@linaro.org> <52EBC645.2040607@linux.intel.com> <alpine.LFD.2.11.1401311236470.2312@knanqh.ubzr> <20140203125441.GD19029@e103034-lin> <52EFA9D3.1030601@linux.intel.com> <20140203145605.GL8874@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <52EFC12B.50704@linux.intel.com> <20140211164136.GT27965@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140211164136.GT27965@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Preeti Murthy <preeti.lkml@gmail.com>, "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On 2/11/2014 8:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:17:47AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On 2/3/2014 6:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> if there's a simple api like
>>
>> sched_cpu_cache_wiped(int llc)
>>
>> that would be very nice for this; the menuidle side knows this
>> for some cases and thus can just call it. This would be a very
>> small and minimal change
>>
>> * if you don't care about llc vs core local caches then that
>>    parameter can go away
>>
>> * I assume this is also called for the local cpu... if not then we
>>    need to add a cpu number argument
>>
>> * we can also call this from architecture code when wbinvd or the
>>    arm equivalent is called etc
>
> A little something like so?
>

is there value also in doing a cpu level cache flush?
(cpu cache flush we know from the C state, for the llc cache flush we need to read an MSR
on x86. Not insane expensive but not zero either)