On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 05:56:30 PM Julius Werner wrote:
> Many cpuidle drivers measure their time spent in an idle state by
> reading the wallclock time before and after idling and calculating the
> difference. This leads to erroneous results when the wallclock time gets
> updated by anoth
>> drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 14 +-
Acked-by: Len Brown
thanks!
-Len
___
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
On 11/15/2012 04:04 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The code looks correct and inviting to me as it has led to good cleanups.
> I dont think passing 0 as the argument to the function
> sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event()
> should lead to problems,as it does not do anything useful with the
> pas
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 05:56:30 PM Julius Werner wrote:
> Many cpuidle drivers measure their time spent in an idle state by
> reading the wallclock time before and after idling and calculating the
> difference. This leads to erroneous results when the wallclock time gets
> updated by anoth
Hi all,
The code looks correct and inviting to me as it has led to good cleanups.
I dont think passing 0 as the argument to the function
sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event()
should lead to problems,as it does not do anything useful with the
passed arguments.
My only curiosity is what was the purpose o
On 11/15/2012 02:56 AM, Julius Werner wrote:
> Many cpuidle drivers measure their time spent in an idle state by
> reading the wallclock time before and after idling and calculating the
> difference. This leads to erroneous results when the wallclock time gets
> updated by another processor in the
> Maybe you can remove all these computations and set the flag
> en_core_tk_irqen for the driver ? That will be handled by the cpuidle
> framework, no ?
>
> Same comment for the intel_idle driver.
Yeah, I thought about that, too. I was a little too afraid of touching
the sched_clock_idle_wakeup_ev
On 11/13/2012 10:52 PM, Julius Werner wrote:
> Many cpuidle drivers measure their time spent in an idle state by
> reading the wallclock time before and after idling and calculating the
> difference. This leads to erroneous results when the wallclock time gets
> updated by another processor in the