Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpuidle: Store the idle start time stamp

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 04/15/2015 02:42 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 02:29:06PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > On 04/15/2015 12:20 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:00:22PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > > +	target_state->idle_stamp = ktime_to_us(ktime_get());
> > >
> > > ktime_get_ns();
> >
> > Hmm, sounds like I missed we are dealing with different units (us / ns) in
> > cpuidle / sched.
> >
> > Would it make sense to store the time into a ktime structure instead and use
> > the relevant function depending on the place we are inspecting the value
> > from ?
>
> Why would you ever want to use us? Does ARM enjoy calculating /1000?
>
> Ah, I see the !scalar ktime got whacked, good! At which point the u64 ns
> and ktime are the same. That said I prefer the u64 over ktime because
> its easier to manipulate.

Ok. I was trying to save one variable on the stack by reusing the 
idle_stamp value but if we store it in a different unit, then we have to 
keep it in order to have usecond for the governors.

I was thinking about converting to nanosecond the cpuidle framework but 
it is not worth to do that as the resolution is too high for the idle 
states.




--
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

--
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/