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

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 02:28:58 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > * Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > 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@xxxxxxxxxx>

OK, thanks!

Rafael