linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpuidle optimizations (on top of linux-next)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 18 Jan 2016 13:45:42 +0000
From:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpuidle optimizations (on top of linux-next)



On 15/01/16 23:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I was looking at the cpuidle code after the Sudeeps's problem report,
> it occured to me that we had some pointless overhead there, so two
> changes to reduce it follow.
>
> [1/2] Make the fallback to to default_idle_call() in call_cpuidle()
>        unnecessary and drop it.
> [2/2] Make menu_select() avoid checking states that don't need to
>        (or even shouldn't) be checked when making the selection.
>

Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep