Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle period

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 04:12 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > This looks really wrong. Why on earth don't you implement a proper governor
> > and just get rid of this extra hackery?
> 
> That is part of the ongoing work where we are integrating the different PM
> subsystems with the scheduler in order have them collaborating together as
> asked by Ingo [1].
> 
> The idea is to get rid of the governors and let the scheduler to tell the
> Cpuidle framework : "I expect to sleep <x> nsec and I have a <y>
> nsec latency requirement" as stated by Peter Zijlstra [2].
> 
> The code above could be not nice but I think it begins to do what is expecting
> Peter. It is an embryonic code and in order to prevent too much different
> topics for a single series, I posted the two first patches which provide the
> next event API as the foundations for the next changes. How we integrate the
> 'next event' is a question I wanted to postpone in a different series of RFC
> patches.

Fair enough.