On Saturday, May 09, 2015 10:33:05 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, May 09, 2015 10:11:41 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, May 09, 2015 11:19:16 AM Preeti U Murthy wrote: > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > > > On 05/08/2015 07:48 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > [cut] > > > > > >> > > > >> + /* Take note of the planned idle state. */ > > > >> + idle_set_state(smp_processor_id(), target_state); > > > > > > > > And I wouldn't do this either. > > > > > > > > The behavior here is pretty much as though the driver demoted the state > > > > chosen > > > > by the governor and we don't call idle_set_state() again in those cases. > > > > > > Why is this wrong? > > > > It is not "wrong", but incomplete, because demotions done by the cpuidle > > driver > > should also be taken into account in the same way. > > > > But I'm seeing that the recent patch of mine that made cpuidle_enter_state() > > call default_idle_call() was a mistake, because it might confuse > > find_idlest_cpu() > > significantly as to what state the CPU is in. I'll drop that one for now. > > OK, done. > > So after I've dropped it I think we need to do three things: > (1) Move the idle_set_state() calls to cpuidle_enter_state(). > (2) Make cpuidle_enter_state() call default_idle_call() again, but this time > do that *before* it has called idle_set_state() for target_state. > (3) Introduce demotion as per my last patch. > > Let me cut patches for that.
Done as per the above and the patches follow in replies to this messge. All on top of the current linux-next branch of the linux-pm.git tree. -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
