On 4/7/2011 11:18 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote: > From: Nicole Chalhoub<n-chalhoub@xxxxxx> > > While there is CPU load, continue the periodic tick in order to give > CPUidle another opportunity to pick a deeper C-state instead of > spending potentially long i so I don't really like this patch. It's actually a pretty bad hack (I'm sure it'll work somewhat) [and I mean that in the most positive sense of the word ;-) ] what we really need instead, and this is inside cpuidle, is the option to set a timer when we enter the non-deepest C state, so that if that timer fires we then reevaluate. The duration of that timer will be dependent on the C state (so should come from the C state structure of the state we pick). For the most shallow one this will be a relatively short time, but for the deepest-but-one this might be a lot longer time. your patch abuses a completely different, unrelated timer for this, with a pretty much unspecified frequency, that also has other side effects that we probably don't want. it shouldn't be hard to do the right thing instead and make it a separate timer with a per C state timeout. (and I would say a default timeout of 10x the break even time that we already have in the structure) _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
