From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753513AbcLHWFw (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:05:52 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:60823 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752237AbcLHWFv (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:05:51 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 23:05:48 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Len Brown , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86: remove idle_notifier Message-ID: <20161208220548.GC12472@amd> References: <20161206165420.GA4406@amd> <20161207134033.GA22493@amd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sHrvAb52M6C8blB9" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --sHrvAb52M6C8blB9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu 2016-12-08 10:18:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Wed 2016-12-07 12:46:12, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Tue, 6 Dec 2016, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > From: Len Brown > > > > >=20 > > > > > Upon removal of the i7300_idle driver, the idle_notifer is unused. > > > >=20 > > > > Actually... do we want to keep this this one? There's "cpu is loade= d" > > > > led trigger, which is implemented on arm but not on x86. > > > >=20 > > > > I tried to patch process.c, but this would be easier (and does not > > > > require new hooks). > > > >=20 > > > > Does that make sense? > > >=20 > > > No. Notifiers are crap. > > >=20 > > > I assume this LED thing is just for entertainment purposes as I cannot > > > figure out why it would be useful. ARM has it does not qualify as use= ful. > >=20 > > Well, on low-speed systems, that led is actually quite important. You > > know if your keypress was registered, and CPU is just slow, or if you > > need to press it again. >=20 > I'm dealing with low-speed systems for 20 years now and that LED was never > important for me, quite the contrary, it's annoying to have the extra work > in the idle wakeup path which causes extra pointless latency. If you can't > figure out your keypress lag without that LED then feel free to patch your > own kernel, but stop trying to impose that nonsense on everyone. The kernel already has the hooks, and they did not seem to bother anyone. Arm already has the functionality, and it is useful. You may not care, but so what. Leds are broken on x86, plain and simple. Perhaps that should not be your decision? Feel free to patch it out of your kernel. Or feel free to argue that it needs to be removed from arm. But having unneccessary differences between architectures is just ugly. Pavel --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --sHrvAb52M6C8blB9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlhJ2TwACgkQMOfwapXb+vJXmwCdF33HPexy4N9Cmudl2enz+LEv uyQAmgPTkb22Gy45R7dUnz1CHgDRl28a =Wjyh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sHrvAb52M6C8blB9--