On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:14:27AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 04/16/2012 05:34 PM, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > >> > >> Maybe we also want to make the 'disabled' flag per CPU then or provide some > >> other way the number of C states can be different per CPU? > > > > What do you think about this? Do we also want to make the disabled flag per > > CPU? Or how should we deal with a different number of C states per CPU? > > Hi Peter, > > yes, that could makes sense. But in most of the architecture, this is > not needed, so duplicating the state's array and latencies is unneeded > memory consumption. > > Maybe we can look for a COW approach, similar to what is done for the > nsproxy structure, no ? > That could be easily solved by just having a pointer to the state table in the per CPU datastructure I think? Cheers, Peter. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
