From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpuidle optimizations (on top of linux-next) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:28:58 +0100 Message-ID: <20160119132858.GA32559@gmail.com> References: <1621492.NI2xz9vt7M@vostro.rjw.lan> <569CEC86.5080002@arm.com> <20160119072811.GA11346@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:35046 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751100AbcASN3D (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2016 08:29:03 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Sudeep Holla , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Peter Zijlstra , Linux PM list , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Daniel Lezcano * Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Sudeep Holla 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 > > > > 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 Thanks, Ingo