Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:28:58 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpuidle optimizations (on top of linux-next) |
| |
* 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>
Thanks,
Ingo
| |