Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 Jun 2010 10:05:18 -0700 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] power_end event (Resend) |
| |
On 6/9/2010 6:57 AM, Robert Schöne wrote: > Original Mail was sent at 2010/05/14 10:38:43 CEST > > Hi, > I reported the power_end tracing problem earlier this year > (http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/24/79) and sent a patch which worked for my > system. However this patch would have not worked on other systems (as > for example Arjans). It would had lead to a double posting of these > events. > > However. Here's a diff that should fix the problem on the correct spot. > > The reason that it worked for Arjan and not for me is that his system > uses drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c when idling, mine uses the cpu_idle > thread from arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c. > A comparable idle thread also exists for 32 bit x86, so I added it in > process_32.c too. > > However, is there any standard about where to report the start and end > events? Currently it's the idle routine, which creates the power_start > event, the routine which calls the idle_routine on the other hand > creates the power_end event. >
only the actual idle routine knows what C state it goes in; there's no central way for that really.
> For these patches, I'm not sure whether the power_end event should even > be reported. On kernels, which use the repnop loop when idling, there > won't be a switch to another c-state and therefore no power_start event, > the power_end event could belong to. Would that be a problem? If it > would, the only way to fix this would be to move the power_end events > into the idle routines, since cpu_idle is dumb and does not know whats > behind pm_idle. > >
the patch makes sense; Acked-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |