Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759261Ab2BONia (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:38:30 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:34882 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758246Ab2BONiY convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:38:24 -0500 Message-ID: <1329313084.2293.105.camel@twins> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Scheduler idle notifiers and users From: Peter Zijlstra To: Mark Brown Cc: Saravana Kannan , Ingo Molnar , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Todd Poynor , Russell King , Nicolas Pitre , Oleg Nesterov , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Anton Vorontsov , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, Mike Chan , Dave Jones , "Paul E. McKenney" , kernel-team@android.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Arjan Van De Ven Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:38:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20120211153324.GC31887@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <20120208013959.GA24535@panacea> <1328670355.2482.68.camel@laptop> <20120208202314.GA28290@redhat.com> <1328736834.2903.33.camel@pasglop> <20120209075106.GB18387@elte.hu> <4F35DD3E.4020406@codeaurora.org> <20120211143951.GA24564@sirena.org.uk> <1328971983.11320.5.camel@laptop> <20120211153324.GC31887@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1101 Lines: 28 On Sat, 2012-02-11 at 15:33 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > Having to actually wait for this in software is quite ridiculous. > > Well, it's also not terribly hard. Having to schedule from the scheduler is. Which is exactly the situation you'll end up with if you want scheduler driven cpufreq, which I thought everybody wanted because polling state sucks. > There's use cases for having this > stuff offloaded but if you're not doing that stuff then why deal with > the complication of designing the hardware? Because doing it in software is more expensive? Penny-wise pound-foolish like thing.. you make the software requirements more complex, which results in more bugs (more cost in debugging), more runtime (for doing the 'software' thing), less power savings. Esp since all this uC/system-controller stuff is already available and validated. -- 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/