RE: [PATCH] more robust halt_light

From: Seth, Rohit <rohit.seth_at_intel.com>
Date: 2004-03-04 13:40:41
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jesse Barnes [mailto:jbarnes@sgi.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 2:56 PM
>To: davidm@hpl.hp.com
>Cc: Alex Williamson; Seth, Rohit; linux-ia64
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] more robust halt_light
>
>On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 02:45:11PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
>> Can we get rid of the CONFIG option too?  Or do folks who care (too?)
>> much about wake-up latency prefer to turn off a CONFIG option over
>> booting with nohlt?
>
>Some people have come to me concerned about the wakeup latency of
having
>the halt call in there, and it also looks like the PAL has a bug on our
>platform that causes hangs when we call PAL_HALT_LIGHT (which we're
>tracking down), so I wouldn't mind if the config option stuck around a
>little longer (or was a boot time parameter at least).
>
>Thanks,
>Jesse

As far as latency is concerned, do you have any specific workload that
is getting impacted (severly) by this transition.  

I think we should remove the compile time CONFIG_OPTION for
PAL_HALT_LIGHT.  And instead use /proc interface to dynamically
enable/disable the power transition.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Wed Mar 3 21:42:47 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:24 EST