Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1586878
| From | Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration |
| Date | 2017-02-23 14:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <te1to-1Iv-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tdEGu-1Nw-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <tdGfg-32X-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tdGyD-3dk-43@gated-at.bofh.it> <te0GZ-1dj-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 13:15 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 10:55:04 PM Alex Shi wrote: > > > > > > Its not hard; spinlock_t ends up being a mutex, and this is ran > > > from the > > > idle thread. What thread do you think we ought to run when we > > > block > > > idle? > > > > > > > Straight right. > > Thanks for explanations! :) > > I overlooked that, sorry. > > Shall we revert? > > I don't want RT to be broken because of this. Just whacking the lock would take care of that. The question is who is gonna use this, and what does it really buy them? When I look at that commit, an eyebrow raises, lock or no lock. -Mike
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> - 2017-02-22 14:00 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-02-22 14:20 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> - 2017-02-22 14:20 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-02-22 15:40 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> - 2017-02-22 16:00 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-02-23 13:30 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> - 2017-02-23 14:20 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> - 2017-02-23 15:10 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> - 2017-02-23 15:10 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-02-23 23:40 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> - 2017-02-24 03:00 +0100
[PATCH] cpuidle: menu: Avoid taking spinlock for accessing QoS values "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-02-24 13:40 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> - 2017-02-22 15:40 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> - 2017-02-22 15:50 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> - 2017-02-22 16:00 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> - 2017-02-22 16:10 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org> - 2017-02-22 16:40 +0100
Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> - 2017-02-22 16:50 +0100
csiph-web