Re: [PATCH] idle, thermal, acpi: Remove home grown idle implementations

[Jacob Pan]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:55:20 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 01:58:12AM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 10:54:18 +0200
> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > I'm still sitting on this patch. Jacub you were going to make it
> > > play nice with QoS?
> > > 
> > I had a patchset to work through system PM QOS and still maintain
> > the idle injection efficiency. When I saw you did not merge the
> > patch below, I thought you have abandoned it :)
> 
> I was waiting for you to do the QoS bits :-)
> 
> > The only issue as per our last discussion is the lack of
> > notification when PM QOS cannot be met. But that is intrinsic to PM
> > QOS itself.
> > 
> > I also consulted with Arjan and looked at directly intercept with
> > intel_idle since both intel_powerclamp and intel_idle are arch
> > specific drivers. But I think that is hard to do at per idle period
> > basis, since we should still allow "natural" idle during the forced
> > idle time.
> > 
> > So, I think we can take a two stepped approach,
> > 1. integrate your patch with a
> > updated version of https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/26/534 such that
> > there is no performance/efficiency regression.
> > 2. add notification mechanism to system qos when constraints cannot
> > be met.
> 
> That's fine with me; can you respin those bits?

yes, working on it. it may take some time since lots of testing needed.
will include acpipad as well.
--
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/