* Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-10-12 20:00:05]: > Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > So does it make sense to have a set of sets? > > > > Why not integrate them all into one set to be ruled by this governor > > thing? > > cpuidle is currently optional, that is why the two level hierarchy > is there so that you can still have simple idle selection without it. > > % size drivers/cpuidle/*.o > text data bss dec hex filename > 5514 1416 44 6974 1b3e drivers/cpuidle/built-in.o > > Adding it unconditionally would add ~7k to everyone who wants idle functions. > > I think making it unconditional would require putting it on a serious > diet first. > Hi Andi, Yes, this is a valid point. How about something like this.. If the arch does not enable CONFIG_CPU_IDLE, the cpuidle_idle_call which is called from cpu_idle() should call default_idle without involving the registering cpuidle steps. This should prevent bloating up of the kernel for archs which dont want to use cpuidle. --arun > -Andi > -- > ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
