Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751211AbVIGQIr (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:08:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751228AbVIGQIr (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:08:47 -0400 Received: from prgy-npn1.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.37]:41477 "EHLO oddball.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751211AbVIGQIr (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2005 12:08:47 -0400 Message-ID: <431F11FF.2000704@tmr.com> Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:14:55 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050729 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vatsa@in.ibm.com CC: Con Kolivas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, ck list , rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dynticks - implement no idle hz for x86 References: <20050831165843.GA4974@in.ibm.com> <200509031801.09069.kernel@kolivas.org> <20050903090650.B26998@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <200509031814.49666.kernel@kolivas.org> <20050904201054.GA4495@us.ibm.com> <20050904212616.B11265@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20050905053225.GA4294@in.ibm.com> <20050905054813.GC25856@us.ibm.com> <20050905063229.GB4294@in.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20050905063229.GB4294@in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1569 Lines: 36 Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:48:13PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > >>Admittedly, I don't think SMP ARM has been around all that long? Maybe >>the existing code just has not been extended. > > > Yeah, maybe ARM never cared for SMP. But we do care :) > > >>I'm not sure on this. It's going to be NULL for other architectures, or >>end up being called by the reprogram() call for the last CPU to go idle, >>right (presuming there isn't a separate TOD source, like in x86). I >>think it is better to be in the reprogram() interface. > > > Non-x86 could have it set to NULL, in which case it doesn't get called. > (I know the current code does not take care of this situation). > But having an explicit 'all_cpus_idle' interface may be good, since > Tony talked of idling some devices when all CPUs are idle. So it > probably has non-x86/PIT uses too. If this is intended to reduce power, and it originally came from that root, then this is the time to put in a hook for transitions to<=>from the all-idle state. Various arch may have things other than the PIT which should (or at least can) be stopped, and which need to be restarted. -- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/