[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hXAVA0B-GgdXKfbotLvU4x73OrHOEpjB1Lg0cfh8G88w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:42:56 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: regression caused by bb6ab52f2bef ("intel_pstate: Do not set
utilization update hook too early")
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> First of all, sorry for top post, only webmail is available now.
>>
>> Second, sorry again for report incorrect commit, I were too tired this morning so I remember the wrong commit. The regression is caused by bb6ab52f2bef ("intel_pstate: Do not set utilization update hook too early"), so I update the email title.
>
> OK, that makes much more sense. :-)
>
> And
>
> 4578ee7e1def intel_pstate: Avoid unnecessary synchronize_sched()
> during initialization
>
> is not sufficient I suppose?
I mean, it is not sufficient to reduce the number of wakeups again?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists