Subject: Re: [v8 PATCH 2/8]: cpuidle: implement a list based approach to register a set of idle routines.

From: Arun R Bharadwaj <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:47:27 +0530

* Andi Kleen <[email-masked]> [2009-10-12 20:00:05]:

> Peter Zijlstra <[email-masked]> writes:
> >
> > So does it make sense to have a set of sets?
> >
> > Why not integrate them all into one set to be ruled by this governor
> > thing?
> 
> cpuidle is currently optional, that is why the two level hierarchy
> is there so that you can still have simple idle selection without it.
> 
> % size drivers/cpuidle/*.o
>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>    5514    1416      44    6974    1b3e drivers/cpuidle/built-in.o
> 
> Adding it unconditionally would add ~7k to everyone who wants idle functions.
> 
> I think making it unconditional would require putting it on a serious
> diet first.
> 

Hi Andi,

Yes, this is a valid point.

How about something like this..
If the arch does not enable CONFIG_CPU_IDLE, the cpuidle_idle_call
which is called from cpu_idle() should call default_idle without
involving the registering cpuidle steps. This should prevent bloating
up of the kernel for archs which dont want to use cpuidle.

--arun
> -Andi
> -- 
> [email-masked] -- Speaking for myself only.