Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpuidle optimizations (on top of linux-next) | Date | Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:50:48 +0100 |
| |
On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 02:28:58 PM Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > * Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On 15/01/16 23:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > >> >Hi, > > >> > > > >> >When I was looking at the cpuidle code after the Sudeeps's problem report, > > >> >it occured to me that we had some pointless overhead there, so two > > >> >changes to reduce it follow. > > >> > > > >> >[1/2] Make the fallback to to default_idle_call() in call_cpuidle() > > >> > unnecessary and drop it. > > >> >[2/2] Make menu_select() avoid checking states that don't need to > > >> > (or even shouldn't) be checked when making the selection. > > >> > > > >> > > >> Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > > > > > Rafael, can I pick these up into the scheduler tree? > > > > They won't apply at this point as one commit they depend on is in my > > linux-next branch waiting for the next push. > > > > Would it be a problem if they went in through the PM tree instead? > > Absolutely no problem: > > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
OK, thanks!
Rafael
| |