[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56CC30B7.8090304@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:13:11 +0100
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Shreyas B Prabhu <shreyas@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rafael@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
nicolas.pitre@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle
period
On 02/23/2016 11:06 AM, Shreyas B Prabhu wrote:
>
>
> On 02/16/2016 09:13 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> [...]
>> + if (index < 0) {
>> + /*
>> + * No idle callbacks fulfilled the constraints, jump
>> + * to the default function like there wasn't any
>> + * cpuidle driver.
>> + */
>> + goto default_idle;
>> + } else {
>> + /*
>> + * Enter the idle state previously returned by the
>> + * governor decision. This function will block until
>> + * an interrupt occurs and will take care of
>> + * re-enabling the local interrupts
>> + */
>> + return cpuidle_enter(drv, dev, index);
>
> Minor point. You are not calling rcu_idle_exit() in else block. This
> should probably be
> ret = cpuidle_enter(drv, dev, index);
> goto out;
Yes. Right.
Thanks for the review.
-- Daniel
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists