From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753791Ab0JTPec (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:34:32 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:62608 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751128Ab0JTPeb (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:34:31 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,356,1283756400"; d="scan'208";a="618590515" Message-ID: <4CBF0C04.5070705@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:34:28 +0200 From: Andi Kleen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arjan van de Ven CC: Trinabh Gupta , Venkatesh Pallipadi , 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 References: <20101019183522.17992.86937.stgit@tringupt.in.ibm.com> <4CBDE5AB.4040401@linux.intel.com> <4CBDEB14.2030304@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4CBF06D5.7020508@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4CBF0854.6080903@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4CBF0854.6080903@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > but now you're duplicating this functionality adding code for everyone. > > 99.999% of the people today run cpuidle... (especially embedded x86 > where they really care about power) > all x86 going forward also has > 1 idle option anyway. > > and you're adding and extra layer in the middle that just duplicates > the layer that's in use in practice above it. > > seriously, this sounds like the wrong tradeoff to make. 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. -Andi