From: Patryk Wlazlyn <patryk.wlazlyn@linux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com,
peterz@infradead.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
gautham.shenoy@amd.com, tglx@linutronix.de, len.brown@intel.com,
artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] x86/smp: Allow calling mwait_play_dead with an arbitrary hint
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2025 10:50:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f597da81-abdc-4133-b5ad-432792b6aa6e@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0i=_wNubB8_yQtBZYLYJ+f==c9OVMpxbtYHfFCJR+nsng@mail.gmail.com>
>>> And honestly I'm wondering why adding a parameter to mwait_play_dead()
>>> is better than introducing mwait_play_dead_with_hint(), in analogy
>>> with the existing mwait_idle_with_hints()?
Well.. Maybe that wasn't that good of an idea. I've given the rationale
in the 0/4:
> Changes since v6:
> * Renamed mwait_play_dead to mwait_play_dead_cpuid_hint in 1/1, so that
> mwait_play_dead name can be reused for the function that takes the
> MWAIT hint as an argument. This leaves the comments around the
> smpboot.c file that reference the old mwait_play_dead() unchanged.
It makes the patches simpler, in a sense that I don't have to update the
comments each patch when moving things around and renaming.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-02 9:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-29 18:22 [PATCH v7 0/4] SRF: Fix offline CPU preventing pc6 entry Patryk Wlazlyn
2024-11-29 18:22 ` [PATCH v7 1/4] x86/smp: Allow calling mwait_play_dead with an arbitrary hint Patryk Wlazlyn
2024-12-03 4:37 ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2024-12-10 19:51 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-12-17 20:09 ` Patryk Wlazlyn
2024-12-17 20:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-01-02 9:50 ` Patryk Wlazlyn [this message]
2024-11-29 18:22 ` [PATCH v7 2/4] ACPI: processor_idle: Add FFH state handling Patryk Wlazlyn
2024-12-03 4:39 ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2024-12-10 20:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-11-29 18:22 ` [PATCH v7 3/4] intel_idle: Provide the default enter_dead() handler Patryk Wlazlyn
2024-11-29 18:22 ` [PATCH v7 4/4] x86/smp native_play_dead: Prefer cpuidle_play_dead() over mwait_play_dead() Patryk Wlazlyn
2024-12-03 4:48 ` Gautham R. Shenoy
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=f597da81-abdc-4133-b5ad-432792b6aa6e@linux.intel.com \
--to=patryk.wlazlyn@linux.intel.com \
--cc=artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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