On 9 April 2013 15:16, Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-04-09 at 14:18 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 9 April 2013 10:55, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 16:15 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> >> Changes since V2: >> >> - remove useless definition for UP platform >> >> - rebased on top of Steven Rostedt's patches : >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/12/558 >> > >> > So what's the status of those patches? I still worry about the extra >> > context switch overhead for the high-frequency idle scenario. >> >> I don't know. I have seen a pulled answer from Ingo but can't find the >> commits in the tip tree. >> >> Steve, have you got more info about the status of your patches ? >> > > Yeah, I asked Ingo to revert it due to Peter's concerns. I was able to > get the latencies I needed without that patch set. That made it not so > urgent. > > Can you rebase your patches doing something similar? That is, still use > the pre/post_schedule_idle() calls, but don't base it off of my patch > set.
Yes. I'm going to rebase my patches and add the declaration of post_schedule_idle in my patch instead of using your patch Thanks, Vincent > > Thanks, > > -- Steve > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
