thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:05:36AM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > > I think there are other problems too, related to saving and restoring
> > > of pm_idle pointer. For example, cpuidle itself saves current value
> > > of pm_idle, flips it and then restores the saved value. There is
> > > no guarantee that the saved function still exists. APM does exact
> > > same thing (though it may not be used these days).
> > >
> > > The problem also is that a number of architectures have copied the
> > > same design based on pm_idle; so its spreading.
> >
> > pm_idle is a primitive design yes, but I think the issue
> > with pm_idle is a theoretical one, at least on x86;
> > as there isn't any other code scribbling on pm_idle
> > in practice. So this is clean-up, rather than bug-fix work...
> >
> > > > It isn't immediately clear to me that all of these options
> > > > need to be preserved.
> > >
> > > So what do you suggest can be removed?
> >
> > I sent a series of small patches yesterday to get the ball rolling...
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/3/24/54
> >
> > I think the xen thing can go away.
>
> The xen thing being the setting of cpuidle to halt or the proposed
> patch?
I don't think Xen needs a cpuidle driver.
Xen just needs to tell the kernel to call HALT,
and I think we'll keep that around for the non-cpuidle case,
and for the idle periods before cpuidle initializes.
cheers,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home