Re: [v8 PATCH 2/8]: cpuidle: implement a list based approach toregister a set of idle routines.

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 17:31 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:
> 
> > Uhm, no, it would mean ACPI putting its idle routines on the same level
> > as all others.
> > 
> 
> Putting them all on the same level would mean, we need an
> enable/disable routine to enable only the currently active routines.

What's this enable/disable stuff about?

> Also, the way governor works is that, it assumes that idle routines
> are indexed in the increasing order of power benefit that can be got
> out of the state. So this would get messed up.

Right, which is why I initially had a power-savings field in my
proposal, so it could weight the power savings vs the wakeup latency.

  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/27/159

There it was said that was exactly what these governors were doing,
seems its not.

> > Sounds like something is wrong alright. If you can register an idle
> > routine you should be able to unregister it too.
> >
> 
> Yes, we can register and unregister in a clean way now.
> Consider this. We have a set of routines A, B, C currently registered.
> Now a module comes and registers D and E, and later on at some point
> of time wants to unregister. So how do you keep track of what all idle
> routines the module registered and unregister only those?
> Best way to do that is a stack, which is how I have currently
> implemented.

Right, so destroy that inner set thing, that way we only have one
left ;-)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/