From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Trinabh Gupta <trinabh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>,
peterz@infradead.org, lenb@kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com,
benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC V1] cpuidle: add idle routine registration and cleanup pm_idle pointer
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:34:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CBF0C04.5070705@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CBF0854.6080903@linux.intel.com>
> but now you're duplicating this functionality adding code for everyone.
>
> 99.999% of the people today run cpuidle... (especially embedded x86
> where they really care about power)
> all x86 going forward also has > 1 idle option anyway.
>
> and you're adding and extra layer in the middle that just duplicates
> the layer that's in use in practice above it.
>
> seriously, this sounds like the wrong tradeoff to make.
I think the right option is still to put cpuidle on a diet.
There's no reason an idle handler needs to be that bloated.
If it was 2K or so just including it into the core would be fine.
Ignoring code size completely is generally a wrong trade off imho.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-20 15:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-19 18:36 Trinabh Gupta
2010-10-19 18:38 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-19 18:49 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-19 19:01 ` Trinabh Gupta
2010-10-20 15:12 ` Trinabh Gupta
2010-10-20 15:18 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 15:34 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2010-10-20 16:03 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 19:19 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2010-10-20 19:25 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 19:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-20 19:29 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 19:40 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2010-10-20 19:44 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 19:47 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-20 20:03 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2010-10-20 20:47 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-10-20 21:19 ` Venkatesh Pallipadi
2010-10-20 20:55 ` Dipankar Sarma
2010-10-20 15:57 ` Trinabh Gupta
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4CBF0C04.5070705@linux.intel.com \
--to=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=trinabh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=venki@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome