Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: RFC: revert request for cpuidle patches e11538d1 and 69a37bea | Date | Sat, 27 Jul 2013 02:36:20 +0200 |
| |
On Friday, July 26, 2013 11:48:36 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, July 26, 2013 02:29:40 PM Rik van Riel wrote: > > On 07/26/2013 02:27 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > On 7/26/2013 11:13 AM, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Could you try running the tests with just the repeat mode > > >> stuff from commit 69a37bea excluded, but leaving the common > > >> infrastructure and commit e11538? > > >> > > > > > > personally I think we should go the other way around. > > > revert the set entirely first, and now, and get our performance back > > > to what it should be > > > > > > and then see what we can add back without causing the regressions. > > > this may take longer, or be done in steps, and that's ok. > > > > > > the end point may well be the same... but we can then evaluate in the right > > > direction. > > > > Works for me. I have no objection to reverting both patches, > > if the people planning to fix the code prefer that :) > > OK, I'll queue up the reverts as fixes for 3.11-rc4.
So, the reverts are on the fixes-next branch of the linux-pm.git tree that you can access at
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git/log/?h=fixes-next
However, they are not simple reverts as we've had some non-trivial changes on top of those commits already, so I'd appreciate it a lot if somebody could double check if I didn't break anything in them.
They are based on top of my master branch for now, but I'll rebase them on 3.11-rc3 when it's out.
Thanks, Rafael
-- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
| |