[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0de4ce43-bba5-4a6a-929a-7dc9bfea79cd@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 15:28:41 +0100
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/25] timer: Move from a push remote at enqueue to a
pull at expiry model
On 10/19/23 15:04, Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
> Hi Lukasz,
>
> Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> I have tested this on my 2 Arm boards with mainline kernel
>> and almost-mainline. On both platforms it looks stable.
>> The results w/ your patchset looks better.
>>
>
> Thanks for testing!
You're welcome
>
> [...]
>
>> The performance looks good. Only one test 'Speedometer'
>> has some interesting lower score.
>
> Is it required to look into this more detailed or is the regression in a
> acceptable range for you?
That's something which we can ignore. I have tested with a different
cpu idle governor and it goes away. So, I suspect that the governor
heuristic just probably was confused. I will spend some time on
different idle governor tuning.
Feel free to go forward with this patch set.
>
>>
>> Fill free to add:
>>
>> Tested-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anna-Maria
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists