Re: [v8 PATCH 2/8]: cpuidle: implement a list based approach to register a set of idle routines.

* Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] [2009-10-08 14:25:37]:

On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 17:31 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote:

quoted

quoted

Uhm, no, it would mean ACPI putting its idle routines on the same level
as all others.

Putting them all on the same level would mean, we need an
enable/disable routine to enable only the currently active routines.

What's this enable/disable stuff about?

quoted

Also, the way governor works is that, it assumes that idle routines
are indexed in the increasing order of power benefit that can be got
out of the state. So this would get messed up.

Right, which is why I initially had a power-savings field in my
proposal, so it could weight the power savings vs the wakeup latency.

  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/27/159

There it was said that was exactly what these governors were doing,
seems its not.

quoted

quoted

Sounds like something is wrong alright. If you can register an idle
routine you should be able to unregister it too.

Yes, we can register and unregister in a clean way now.
Consider this. We have a set of routines A, B, C currently registered.
Now a module comes and registers D and E, and later on at some point
of time wants to unregister. So how do you keep track of what all idle
routines the module registered and unregister only those?
Best way to do that is a stack, which is how I have currently
implemented.

Right, so destroy that inner set thing, that way we only have one
left ;-)

I'm not convinced with your argument. Why dont we do this
incrementally. Right now, this set of sets mechanism works fine and
doesn't look like it has any obvious flaws in it. We have a clean
register/unregister mechanism which solves all the earlier problems we
started out to solve.

We can gradually build on this and try to come up with a single set
of idle states for a governor to choose from.

thanks,
arun