[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hgKfpi2PDbzk5Rvnio1vC3onaWkJ-2ccg5KAd=r3qPBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:14:59 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpuidle optimizations (on top of linux-next)
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>
> Rafael, can I pick these up into the scheduler tree?
They won't apply at this point as one commit they depend on is in my
linux-next branch waiting for the next push.
Would it be a problem if they went in through the PM tree instead?
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists