[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM9d7chAvc5cfNsJZnJ2bwuNMp4L929it++riuNHw6VsGpHDuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:41:44 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Gabriel Marin <gmx@...gle.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] perf: Optimize sched_task() in a context switch
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 4:04 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter and Kan,
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:25 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 08:52:55AM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/10/2020 2:13 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > > Hi Peter and Kan,
> > > >
> > > > How can we move this forward?
> > >
> > > Hi Namhyung,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the test. The changes look good to me.
> > >
> > > Hi Peter,
> > >
> > > Should we resend the patch set for further review?
> >
> > I've not yet seen a coherent replacement of #3, what I send was just a
> > PoC.
If it's the only problem of #3 which is an optimization,
can we merge the actual fixes in #1 and #2 first?
I know some people waiting for the fix..
Thanks,
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists