linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	Arun Bharadwaj <arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [v8 PATCH 2/8]: cpuidle: implement a list based approach to register a set of idle routines.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:31:06 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091008110106.GK20595@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1254999033.26976.272.camel@twins>

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> [2009-10-08 12:50:33]:

> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 16:12 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
> > 
> > > So cpuidle didn't already have a list of idle functions it takes an
> > > appropriate one from?
> > > 
> > 
> > No.. As of now, cpuidle supported only one _set_ of idle states that
> > can be registered. So in this one set, it would choose the appropriate
> > idle state. But this list mechanism(actually a stack) allows for
> > multiple sets.
> > 
> > This is needed because we have a hierarchy of idle states discovery
> > in x86. First, select_idle_routine() would select poll/mwait/default/c1e.
> > It doesn't know of existance of ACPI. Later when ACPI comes up,
> > it registers a set of routines on top of the earlier set.
> > 
> > > Then what does this governor do?
> > >
> > 
> > The governor would only select the best idle state available from the
> > set of states which is at the top of the stack. (In the above case, it
> > would only consider the states registered by ACPI).
> > 
> > If the top-of-the-stack set of idle states is unregistered, the next
> > set of states on the stack are considered.
> > 
> > > Also, does this imply the governor doesn't consider these idle routines?
> > >
> > 
> > As i said above, governor would only consider the idle routines which
> > are at the top of the stack.
> > 
> > Hope this gave a better idea..
> 
> So does it make sense to have a set of sets?
> 
> Why not integrate them all into one set to be ruled by this governor
> thing?
> 

Right now there is a clean hierarchy. So breaking that would mean
putting the registration of all idle routines under ACPI. So, if ACPI
fails to come up or if ACPI is not supported, that would lead to
problems. Because if that happens now, we can fallback to the
initially registered set.

Also, if a module wants to register a set of routines later on, that
cant be added to the initially registered set. So i think we need this
set of sets.

  reply	other threads:[~2009-10-08 11:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-08  9:48 [v8 PATCH 0/8]: cpuidle: Cleanup cpuidle/ Introduce cpuidle to POWER Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-08  9:49 ` [v8 PATCH 1/8]: cpuidle: cleanup drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-12 11:36   ` Balbir Singh
2009-10-14  6:24     ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-08  9:50 ` [v8 PATCH 2/8]: cpuidle: implement a list based approach to register a set of idle routines Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-08 10:36   ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-08 10:42     ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-08 10:50       ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-08 11:01         ` Arun R Bharadwaj [this message]
2009-10-08 11:25           ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-08 12:01             ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-08 12:25               ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-08 13:10                 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-10-09  9:39                 ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-12 18:00         ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-14  6:17           ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-14  7:18             ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-15  6:06               ` Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-08  9:51 ` [v8 PATCH 3/8]: x86: refactor x86 idle power management code and remove all instances of pm_idle Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-08  9:52 ` [v8 PATCH 4/8]: POWER: enable cpuidle for POWER Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-08  9:53 ` [v8 PATCH 5/8]: pSeries/cpuidle: remove dedicate/shared idle loops, which will be moved to arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/processor_idle.c Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-08  9:53 ` [v8 PATCH 6/8]: POWER: add a default_idle idle loop for POWER Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-08  9:54 ` [v8 PATCH 7/8]: pSeries: implement pSeries processor idle module Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-08  9:56 ` [v8 PATCH 8/8]: POWER: Enable default_idle when power_save=off Arun R Bharadwaj
2009-10-12 10:01 ` [v8 PATCH 0/8]: cpuidle: Cleanup cpuidle/ Introduce cpuidle to POWER Balbir Singh

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=20091008110106.GK20595@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=arjan@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    /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).