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<[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: sanjeev yadav<[email protected]> > > 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
