On Monday, January 21, 2013 03:26:10 PM Olivier Doucet wrote: > >> FYI, I benchmarked a new version with : > >> CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME=y > >> CONFIG_PM=y > >> > >> but the performance loss is still present. > > > > In that case it is not quite likely that the commit you bisected to > > really introduced the problem, because it doesn't change things for > > CONFIG_PM=y. > > > > Does reverting that commit still help? > > I tested several combinations. Results follows : > 3.2.6 (base) + CONFIG_PM unset => BAD > 3.2.6 (base) + CONFIG_PM=y => BAD > 3.2.6 (base) + patch reverted + CONFIG_PM=y => BAD > 3.2.6 (base) + patch reverted + CONFIG_PM unset => GOOD
I see. Two bugs, then. > So if I understand right, the targeted patch introduced the bug when > CONFIG_PM is unset, but there is an other bug when this var is set. > I'll try to track this commit. Thanks a lot! Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
