Re: [PATCH/RFC] arm: arch_timer: Do not set C3STOP in case CPU_IDLE=n

[Magnus Damm]

Hi Mark,

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 01:20:56AM +0100, Magnus Damm wrote:
>> From: Magnus Damm <damm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Modify the ARM architected timer driver to not set C3STOP
>> in case CPU_IDLE is disabled. This is a short term fix that
>> allows use of high resolution timers even though no additional
>> clock event is registered.
>>
>> Not-really-Signed-off-by: Magnus Damm <damm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>>  If someone cares about this case then perhaps it should be
>>  moved up to the clock event main code. The same issue should
>>  in theory trigger on all architectures, perhaps x86 people
>>  hunting for low latency may try to disable CPU_IDLE?
>
> I think that changing tick_is_oneshot_capable and friends to only worry about
> C3STOP when CPU_IDLE is enabled would be a nicer solution. That way you enable
> all clock_event_devices with C3STOP to function as high resolution timers when
> CPU_IDLE's selected. Presenting the hardware differently depending on CPU_IDLE
> feels wrong.

I agree that doing this in the clock event driver is a bit odd. So
because of that I just posted this patch:

[PATCH/RFC] clockevents: Ignore C3STOP when CPUIdle is disabled

> Having some other clock_event_device would be a nicer solution still.

No doubt that another clock event device helps, but mainly together
with CPU Idle IMO.

Thanks for your comments!

/ magnus
--
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/