On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:

On Wednesday 18 June 2014 01:36 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
[..]

quoted

+	To correctly specify idle states timing and energy related properties,
+	the following definitions identify the different execution phases
+	a CPU goes through to enter and exit idle states and the implied
+	energy metrics:
+
+	..__[EXEC]__|__[PREP]__|__[ENTRY]__|__[IDLE]__|__[EXIT]__|__[EXEC]__..
+		    |          |           |          |          |
+
+		    |<------ entry ------->|
+		    |       latency        |
+						      |<- exit ->|
+						      |  latency |
+		    |<-------- min-residency -------->|
+			       |<-------  wakeup-latency ------->|
+

I don't know the wakeup latency makes much sense and also correct.
Hardware wakeup latency is actually exit latency. Is it for failed
or abort-able ilde case ? We are adding this as a new parameter
at least from idle states perspective. I think we should just
avoid it.

I explained the rationale for this parameter in a previous email but 
Lorenzo didn't carry it over. To be clearer, this should be "worst case 
wake-up latency".  It is of interest for PMQOS.  This is the maximum 
delay that can be expected from the moment a wake-up event is signaled 
and the moment the CPU is back operational.  This is more than just exit 
latency.  By default this is entry_latency + exit_latency but when there 
is an abortable PREP phase then it may be shorter than that.


Nicolas