Re: [PATCH v8 00/25] timer: Move from a push remote at enqueue to a pull at expiry model

[Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>]

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