[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hHafjXS_erX_mRda_ZNj5LHXVQPthOO2F5zpBDAoQXsA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:52:22 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 09/10] cpuidle: menu: Refine idle state selection for
running tick
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:49:34AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> + data->next_timer_us = ktime_to_us(tick_nohz_get_sleep_length(&delta_next));
>> + unsigned int delta_next_us = ktime_to_us(delta_next);
>
> We really should be looking at removing all that us nonsense from the
> idle code, but that'll be another series.
Right.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists