[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0g=Enc1ji-HMt9R+WSh9KPvGsB8saN34xtuVi5UOfcBMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 10:28:29 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Ilsche <thomas.ilsche@...dresden.de>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v2 4/6] cpuidle: Return nohz hint from cpuidle_select()
Bummer. :-(
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> + if (drv->states[idx].flags & CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING) {
> + *nohz_ret = false;
> + } else if (drv->states[idx].target_residency < TICK_USEC) {
> + /*
> + * Do not stop the tick if there is at least one more state
> + * within the tick period range that could be used if longer
> + * idle duration was predicted.
> + */
> + *nohz_ret = first_idx > idx &&
> + drv->states[first_idx].target_residency < TICK_USEC;
This is reversed, sent a wrong version of the patch.
I'll resend with this fixed shortly.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists