lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration
From
Date


On 02/23/2017 09:08 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 13:15 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 10:55:04 PM Alex Shi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Its not hard; spinlock_t ends up being a mutex, and this is ran
>>>> from the
>>>> idle thread. What thread do you think we ought to run when we
>>>> block
>>>> idle?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Straight right.
>>> Thanks for explanations! :)
>>
>> I overlooked that, sorry.
>>
>> Shall we revert?
>>
>> I don't want RT to be broken because of this.
>
> Just whacking the lock would take care of that. The question is who is
> gonna use this, and what does it really buy them? When I look at that
> commit, an eyebrow raises, lock or no lock.
>

Right per cpu lock for per cpu data is unnecessary.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-02-23 15:06    [W:0.324 / U:0.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site