[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFoynM_gN=tzsWnE_xAgmy6R8Hie-_yO5zoJTjwNjR38Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:23:46 +0100
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Remove irq_timings
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 22:39, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
>
> On 14/02/2024 22:17, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Daniel!
> >
> > It's 7 years now that we merged irq timings into the kernel, but we
> > still have zero users for this.
Wow, is it really 7 years since then. :-)
> >
> > I'm tempted to declare this experiment failed and remove the whole thing
> > for good.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> I worked on an irq cpuidle governor which had better results than the
> menu governor and equal than the teo governor. But I never succeed to
> have better results without putting some arbitrary when computing the
> next event.
>
> At one moment, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira (Cc'ed) was thinking to may be
> use it for the deadline scheduler.
>
> Ulf (Cc'ed) may be has a plan for the next event for the CPU cluster.
Yes, I still have that plan, but haven't been able to run some real tests yet.
>
> But if no one has plan to use it, there is no good reason to keep it and
> I'm fine if we remove it.
Besides that the code isn't really used at the moment, is it also
blocking us from doing some cleanup/refactoring or other related code?
Kind regards
Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists