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

From: Peter De Schrijver
Date: Thu Apr 19 2012 - 06:24:52 EST

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?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at