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

[Peter De Schrijver]

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?


Cheers,

Peter.
--
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/