From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-x243.google.com (mail-pf0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3sKlp81XrTzDrfj for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 23:46:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pf0-x243.google.com with SMTP id y134so3280581pfg.3 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 06:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/2] cpuidle: Allow idle-states to be disabled at start To: Daniel Lezcano , "Gautham R. Shenoy" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Michael Neuling , Paul Mackerras , Vaidyanathan Srinivasan References: <48afad7788300482c047fc35e70ca8e4bf31a5ac.1471557381.git.ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <57BDB2D8.4080507@linaro.org> <57BDB7F7.3090502@linaro.org> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Anton Blanchard , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org From: Balbir Singh Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 23:46:34 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57BDB7F7.3090502@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 25/08/16 01:06, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 08/24/2016 04:48 PM, Balbir Singh wrote: >> >> >> On 25/08/16 00:44, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> On 08/19/2016 12:26 AM, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: >>>> From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" >>>> >>>> Currently all the idle states registered by a cpu-idle driver are >>>> enabled by default. This patch adds a mechanism which allows the >>>> driver to hint if an idle-state should start in a disabled state. The >>>> cpu-idle core will use this hint to appropriately initialize the >>>> usage->disable knob of the CPU device idle state. >>> >>> Why do you need to do that ? >>> >> >> I think patch 2/2 explains the reason as it uses this infrastructure > > Ok, let me elaborate the question, I was not clear. > > Why the userspace can't setup the system environment at boot time by > disabling the state instead of adding extra code to disable it at boot > time in the kernel and then re-enable it from userspace ? Gautham's patches don't want to have those states enabled by default. They are unlikely to be what production systems need, but likely what a knowledgeable person can look into selectively enable for experimentation. @Gautham? Balbir Singh.