Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1446259 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH]time: Optimize nohz idle enter

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH]time: Optimize nohz idle enter  Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-07-19 11:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH]time: Optimize nohz idle enter "Gaurav Jindal (Gaurav Jindal)" <Gaurav.Jindal@spreadtrum.com> - 2016-07-19 12:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH]time: Optimize nohz idle enter Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-07-19 12:50 +0200

#1446259 — Re: [PATCH]time: Optimize nohz idle enter

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Gaurav Jindal (Gaurav Jindal) wrote:
> 
> tick_nohz_start_idle is called before checking the condition if the idle tick
> can be stopped. In case when can_stop_idle_tick returns 0, the function called
> is of no use thus a extra call doing nothing.
> 
> Shifting calling of function tick_nohz_start_idle inside the if condition makes
> sure that corresponding operations are done only if idle tick can be actually
> stopped. Observance for 1 minute on arm64 architecture shows that shifting code
> can prevent 1.5% of extra calls thus optimizing the idle call sequence.

Nice.

> Signed-off-by: gaurav jindal<gaurav.jindal@spreadtrum.com>
> Signed-off-by: sanjeev yadav<sanjeev.yadav@spreadtrum.com>

This SOB chain is wrong. Sanjeev did not send the patch and is not the
author. Please clarify.

Thanks,

	tglx

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1446311

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:47:37AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Gaurav Jindal (Gaurav Jindal) wrote:
> > 
> > tick_nohz_start_idle is called before checking the condition if the idle tick
> > can be stopped. In case when can_stop_idle_tick returns 0, the function called
> > is of no use thus a extra call doing nothing.
> > 
> > Shifting calling of function tick_nohz_start_idle inside the if condition makes
> > sure that corresponding operations are done only if idle tick can be actually
> > stopped. Observance for 1 minute on arm64 architecture shows that shifting code
> > can prevent 1.5% of extra calls thus optimizing the idle call sequence.
> 
> Nice.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: gaurav jindal<gaurav.jindal@spreadtrum.com>
> > Signed-off-by: sanjeev yadav<sanjeev.yadav@spreadtrum.com>
> 
> This SOB chain is wrong. Sanjeev did not send the patch and is not the
> author. Please clarify.
>
Actually Sanjeev and me worked together, but since only one send the mail so I
included his name as SOB.
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx

-- 
Regards
Gaurav Jindal
+91-8800803297

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1446326

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Gaurav Jindal (Gaurav Jindal) wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:47:37AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Gaurav Jindal (Gaurav Jindal) wrote:
> > > 
> > > tick_nohz_start_idle is called before checking the condition if the idle tick
> > > can be stopped. In case when can_stop_idle_tick returns 0, the function called
> > > is of no use thus a extra call doing nothing.
> > > 
> > > Shifting calling of function tick_nohz_start_idle inside the if condition makes
> > > sure that corresponding operations are done only if idle tick can be actually
> > > stopped. Observance for 1 minute on arm64 architecture shows that shifting code
> > > can prevent 1.5% of extra calls thus optimizing the idle call sequence.
> > 
> > Nice.
> > 
> > > Signed-off-by: gaurav jindal<gaurav.jindal@spreadtrum.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: sanjeev yadav<sanjeev.yadav@spreadtrum.com>
> > 
> > This SOB chain is wrong. Sanjeev did not send the patch and is not the
> > author. Please clarify.
> >
> Actually Sanjeev and me worked together, but since only one send the mail so I
> included his name as SOB.

That does not make it more correct. See Documentation/SubmittingPatches. I
fixed it up.

Thanks,

	tglx

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web