Messages in this thread | | | From | Anna-Maria Behnsen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 00/25] timer: Move from a push remote at enqueue to a pull at expiry model | Date | Thu, 19 Oct 2023 15:55:57 +0200 |
| |
Hello Prateek,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com> writes:
> Hello Anna-Maria, > > Happy to report I don't see any regression with this version of series. > I'll leave the detailed report below.
[...]
> Thank you for debugging and helping fix the tbench regression. > If the series does not change drastically, feel free to add: > > Tested-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com> >
Thanks a lot for all the testing you did! When posting v9, I'll summarize the changes and if required, I'll ask for testing support, if it is ok?
>> >> Possible Next Steps >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> Simple deferrable timers are no longer required as they can be converted to >> global timers. If a CPU goes idle, a formerly deferrable timer will not >> prevent the CPU to sleep as long as possible. Only the last migrator CPU >> has to take care of them. Deferrable timers with timer pinned flags needs >> to be expired on the specified CPU but must not prevent CPU from going >> idle. They require their own timer base which is never taken into account >> when calculating the next expiry time. This conversation and required >> cleanup will be done in a follow up series. >> > > I'll keep an eye out for future versions for testing.
I'll keep you in the loop.
Thanks,
Anna-Maria
| |