Re: [PATCH 0/3] coupled cpuidle state support
From: Arjan van de Ven <hidden>
Date: 2012-03-14 02:06:00
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-omap, linux-pm, lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2012-03-14 · Re: [PATCH 0/3] coupled cpuidle state support · Colin Cross <hidden>
- 2012-01-31 · Re: [PATCH 0/3] coupled cpuidle state support · Daniel Lezcano <hidden>
- 2012-01-25 · Re: [PATCH 0/3] coupled cpuidle state support · Daniel Lezcano <hidden>
- 2012-01-20 · Re: [PATCH 0/3] coupled cpuidle state support · Colin Cross <hidden>
- 2012-01-20 · Re: [PATCH 0/3] coupled cpuidle state support · Daniel Lezcano <hidden>
On 3/13/2012 4:52 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Checking the ready_count seemed like an easy way to do this, but did you have any other mechanisms in mind for CPUs to communicate that they've exited/aborted?
this indeed is the tricky part (which I warned about earlier); I've spent quite a lot of time (weeks) to get this provably working for an Intel system with similar requirements... and it's extremely unfunny, and needed firmware support to close some of the race conditions. I sure hope that hardware with these requirements is on the way out... it's not very OS friendly.