On Fri, 18 Apr 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 04/18/2014 02:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > I suppose so; its still a bit like we won't but we will :-) > > > > So we _will_ actually expose coupled C states through the topology bits, > > that's good. > > Ah, ok. I think I understood where the confusion is coming from. > > A couple of definitions for the same thing :) > > 1. Coupled C-states : *mechanism* implemented in the cpuidle framework: > drivers/cpuidle/coupled.c > > 2. Coupled C-states : *constraint* to reach a cluster power down state, will > be described through the topology and could be implemented by different > mechanism (MCPM, handmade sync, cpuidle-coupled-c-state, firmware). > > We want to expose 2. not 1. to the scheduler.
I couldn't explain it better. Sorry for creating confusion. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
