From: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [v7 PATCH 0/7]: cpuidle/x86/POWER: Cleanup idle power management code in x86, cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c and introduce cpuidle to POWER.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 16:56:48 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091007112648.GC7646@dirshya.in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1254852279.17055.2.camel@laptop>
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> [2009-10-06 20:04:39]:
> On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 22:05 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
>
> > Also, the per-cpu nature of registration/unregistration of cpuidle
> > has been maintained as ACPI needs this.
>
> Right, so can't we ditch that and have acpi default to the lowest common
> C-state and warn when various cpus report different C-states?
Hi Peter,
As Arjan mentioned previously, the per-cpu registration has to stay
for x86 for now due to legacy ACPI compatibility. Breaking that may
break lot of existing users and we do not have a clean fallback
method.
As far as powerpc is concerned, we can work with a single global
registration. However we would like to have the same interface across
different archs.
With the new re-factoring (v7), Arun has killed most of the list
traversal and linking between various cpu's cpuidle_driver structures.
Now we have a per-cpu stack of registered devices and we lookup the
structs using online cpumasks. The cpuidle_driver structure has list
of idle routing pointers (struct cpuidle_state) and rest of it is
statistics that needs to be maintained at a per-cpu level anyway. All
that is duplicated here is the array of idle routines (struct
cpuidle_state) on each cpu.
The objective of the refactoring is to have a single common idle
routine management framework (remove pm_idle) and we have it done
through cpuidle registration framework. We can incrementally remove
the per-cpu registration later easily by splitting the cpuidle_driver
structure.
--Vaidy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-07 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-06 15:24 [v7 PATCH 0/7]: cpuidle/x86/POWER: Cleanup idle power management code in x86, cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c and introduce cpuidle to POWER Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-06 15:26 ` [v7 PATCH 1/7]: cpuidle: cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-06 15:30 ` [v7 PATCH 2/7]: cpuidle: implement a list based approach to register a set of idle routines Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-06 15:31 ` [v7 PATCH 3/7]: x86: refactor x86 idle power management code and remove all instances of pm_idle Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-07 14:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-07 16:45 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-08 5:54 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-06 15:32 ` [v7 PATCH 4/7]: POWER: enable cpuidle for POWER Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-06 15:33 ` [v7 PATCH 5/7]: pSeries/cpuidle: remove dedicate/shared idle loops, which will be moved to arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/processor_idle.c Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-06 15:34 ` [v7 PATCH 6/7]: POWER: add a default_idle idle loop for POWER Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-06 15:35 ` [v7 PATCH 7/7]: pSeries: implement pSeries processor idle module Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-07 13:50 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-06 16:35 ` [v7 PATCH 0/7]: cpuidle/x86/POWER: Cleanup idle power management code in x86, cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c and introduce cpuidle to POWER Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-06 18:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-07 11:26 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan [this message]
2009-10-07 11:47 ` Balbir Singh
2009-10-07 13:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-07 13:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091007112648.GC7646@dirshya.in.ibm.com \
--to=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).