On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:02:55PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > There is the series from Audrey which makes use of the various idle >> > prediction mechanisms, scheduler, irq timings, idle governor to get an idea >> > about the estimated idle time. Exactly this information can be fed to the >> > kvmidle driver which can act accordingly. >> > >> > Hacking a random hardware specific idle driver is definitely the wrong >> > approach. It might be useful to chain the kvmidle driver and hardware >> > specific drivers at some point, i.e. if the kvmdriver decides not to exit >> > it delegates the mwait decision to the proper hardware driver in order not >> > to reimplement all the required logic again. >> >> By making changes to idle core to allow that chaining? >> Does this sound like something reasonable? > > At least for me it makes sense to avoid code duplication. Well, I agree. Thanks, Rafael
