linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64: cpuidle: make arm_cpuidle

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:	Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:15:07 +0000
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>
Cc:	catalin.marinas@....com, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com,
	daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64: cpuidle: make arm_cpuidle_suspend() more
 efficient

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 01:08:48PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> This series is to improve the arm_cpuidle_suspend() a bit by removing/moving
> out checks from this hot path.
> 
> Jisheng Zhang (2):
>   arm64: cpuidle: remove cpu_ops check from arm_cpuidle_suspend()
>   arm64: cpuidle: make arm_cpuidle_suspend() a bit more efficient
> 
>  arch/arm64/kernel/cpuidle.c | 9 ++-------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

These look fine to me, but do you have any rough numbers showing what
sort of improvement we get from this change?

Will