[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160119132858.GA32559@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:28:58 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...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)
* Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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?
Absolutely no problem:
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists