On 23 June 2016 at 16:18, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> On 23 June 2016 at 15:01, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> Thomas, I agree with you, I have discussed the modification with the
>> call back owner. However, I wonder if we can make the idle's framework
>> to be more precised without the assumption of short CPU_PM_ENTER
>> callbacks. Thank you!
>
> What's the point? To help people who put insanities into the idle code path?
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
Hi, Thomas. If the entry,exit,min time of one idle state sums up to
500us in some platform, the 100us callback which should be common as
caused by cache miss would also generate 20% imprecision. Don't you
think it is a case we should deal with?
