From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753464Ab2DSJOo (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2012 05:14:44 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:34040 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751245Ab2DSJOl (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2012 05:14:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4F8FD773.5030500@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:14:27 +0200 From: Daniel Lezcano User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter De Schrijver CC: "Shilimkar, Santosh" , Kevin Hilman , Len Brown , Trinabh Gupta , Russell King , Stephen Warren , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Deepthi Dharwar , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , Colin Cross , Olof Johansson , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Arjan van de Ven , Rob Lee , Ricardo Salveti Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cpuidle: allow per cpu latencies References: <1333619620-21201-1-git-send-email-pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> <4F7DA009.4010802@linux.intel.com> <4F7F0D52.8080305@linaro.org> <20120410102857.GA22721@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com> <20120416153456.GB514@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: <20120416153456.GB514@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/16/2012 05:34 PM, Peter De Schrijver wrote: >> >> Maybe we also want to make the 'disabled' flag per CPU then or provide some >> other way the number of C states can be different per CPU? > > What do you think about this? Do we also want to make the disabled flag per > CPU? Or how should we deal with a different number of C states per CPU? Hi Peter, yes, that could makes sense. But in most of the architecture, this is not needed, so duplicating the state's array and latencies is unneeded memory consumption. Maybe we can look for a COW approach, similar to what is done for the nsproxy structure, no ? -- Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog