From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpuidle/menu: stop seeking deeper idle if current state is too deep Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 07:55:24 -0800 Message-ID: References: <1483630187-29622-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org> <1483630187-29622-2-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org> <1483631039.25514.1.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:48167 "EHLO mga05.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161609AbdAEPz0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2017 10:55:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1483631039.25514.1.camel@redhat.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Rik van Riel , Alex Shi , Daniel Lezcano , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , vincent.guittot@linaro.org, open list Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ulf Hansson , Rasmus Villemoes On 1/5/2017 7:43 AM, Rik van Riel wrote: > 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? or better, a boot time quick check...