Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:23:52 -0800 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/7] idle, thermal, acpi: Remove home grown idle implementations |
| |
On 11/20/2013 9:23 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >> On 11/20/2013 8:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> This does not fully preseve existing behaviour in that the generic >>> idle cycle function calls into the normal cpuidle governed idle >>> routines and should thus respect things like QoS parameters and the >>> like. >> >> >> NAK on the powerclamp side. >> >> powerclamp MUST NOT do that.... >> it is needed to go to the deepest state no matter what >> (this is for when your system is overheating. there is not a lot of choice >> here... alternative is an emergency reset that the hardware does for safety) > > So that whole machinery falls apart when the thing which is running on > that hot core is a while(1) loop with a higher or equal FIFO priority > than this thread. Even if you'd run at prio 99, then there is no > guarantee that the cpu hog does not run with prio 99 as well and due > to FIFO and being on the CPU it's not going to let you on.
the idea was to at least give people who know what they're doing a chance to run
| |