Re: [RFC PATCH] cpuidle: allow per cpu latencies

[Daniel Lezcano]

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 ?



--
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/