From: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Trinabh Gupta <trinabh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>,
peterz@infradead.org, lenb@kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC V1] cpuidle: add idle routine registration and cleanup pm_idle pointer
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 02:25:30 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101020205530.GA22317@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CBF12CB.9050604@linux.intel.com>
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 09:03:23AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 10/20/2010 8:34 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> >I think the right option is still to put cpuidle on a diet.
> >There's no reason an idle handler needs to be that bloated.
> >
> >If it was 2K or so just including it into the core would be fine.
> >
> >Ignoring code size completely is generally a wrong trade off imho.
>
> I'm not ignoring code size.
> I'm saying that a 7Kb component that everyone on this architecture
> uses in practice versus adding 0.5Kb in ADDITION to that for
> everyone for the theoretical case
> of someone NOT using cpuidle is the wrong tradeoff.
The 0.5kb is necessary because we want to move from dangling
pm_idle to a simple registration mechanism.
> having it go on a diet? I'm all for it. Killing off the ladder
> governor for example is a step.
> But really. 7Kb. There's lots of lower hanging fruit as well. 7Kb is
> not a reason to make such a bad tradeoff.
Given the number of archs using this, doing this incrementally
seems to be the best way to go. The registration part first,
trimming cpuidle, moving other archs to the registration
mechanism later eventually deprecating pm_idle.
Thanks
Dipankar
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-20 20:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-19 18:36 [RFC V1] cpuidle: add idle routine registration and cleanup pm_idle pointer Trinabh Gupta
2010-10-19 18:38 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-19 18:49 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-19 19:01 ` Trinabh Gupta
2010-10-20 15:12 ` Trinabh Gupta
2010-10-20 15:18 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 15:34 ` Andi Kleen
2010-10-20 16:03 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 19:19 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2010-10-20 19:25 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 19:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-20 19:29 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 19:40 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2010-10-20 19:44 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 19:47 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-20 20:03 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2010-10-20 20:47 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 21:19 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-20 20:55 ` Dipankar Sarma [this message]
2010-10-20 15:57 ` Trinabh Gupta
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=20101020205530.GA22317@in.ibm.com \
--to=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=trinabh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=venki@google.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).