Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpuidle optimizations (on top of linux-next)

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* 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