Message-ID: <4FDF16DB.6080004@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:24:03 +0530
From: Deepthi Dharwar <deepthi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
CC: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Lists Linaro-dev <linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>,
        "lenb@kernel.org" <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>,
        Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com>,
        Rob Lee <rob.lee@linaro.org>, rjw@sisk.pl,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>, linux-next@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cpuidle future and improvements
References: <4FDEE98D.7010802@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <4FDEE98D.7010802@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2880
Lines: 76

On 06/18/2012 02:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

> 
> Dear all,
> 
> A few weeks ago, Peter De Schrijver proposed a patch [1] to allow per
> cpu latencies. We had a discussion about this patchset because it
> reverse the modifications Deepthi did some months ago [2] and we may
> want to provide a different implementation.
> 
> The Linaro Connect [3] event bring us the opportunity to meet people
> involved in the power management and the cpuidle area for different SoC.
> 
> With the Tegra3 and big.LITTLE architecture, making per cpu latencies
> for cpuidle is vital.
> 
> Also, the SoC vendors would like to have the ability to tune their cpu
> latencies through the device tree.
> 
> We agreed in the following steps:
> 
> 1. factor out / cleanup the cpuidle code as much as possible
> 2. better sharing of code amongst SoC idle drivers by moving common bits
> to core code
> 3. make the cpuidle_state structure contain only data
> 4. add a API to register latencies per cpu

On huge systems especially  servers, doing a cpuidle registration on a
per-cpu basis creates a big overhead.
So global registration was introduced in the first place.

Why not have it as a configurable option or so ?
Architectures having uniform cpuidle state parameters can continue to
use global registration, else have an api to register latencies per cpu
as proposed. We can definitely work to see the best way to implement it.


> These four steps impacts all the architecture. I began the factor out
> code / cleanup [4] and that has been accepted upstream and I proposed
> some modifications [5] but I had a very few answers.
> 
> The patch review are very slow and done at the last minute at the merge
> window and that makes code upstreaming very difficult. It is not a
> reproach, it is just how it is and I would like to propose a solution
> for that.
> 
> I propose to host a cpuidle-next tree where all these modifications will
> be and where people can send patches against, preventing last minutes
> conflicts and perhaps Lenb will agree to pull from this tree. In the
> meantime, the tree will be part of the linux-next, the patches will be
> more widely tested and could be fixed earlier.
> 
> Thanks
> -- Daniel
> 
> [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/491257/
> [2] http://lwn.net/Articles/464808/
> [3] http://summit.linaro.org/
> [4]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@vger.kernel.org/msg67033.html,
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-pm/msg27330.html,
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/76311,
> http://www.digipedia.pl/usenet/thread/18885/11795/
> 
> [5] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/8/375
> 


Cheers,
Deepthi

--
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/