On Saturday, April 7, 2018 4:36:25 AM CEST Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:41:13AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > > > > In order to address the issue with short idle duration predictions > > by the idle governor after the scheduler tick has been stopped, split > > tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() into two separate routines, one computing > > the time to the next timer event and the other simply stopping the > > tick when the time to the next timer event is known. > > > > Prepare these two routines to be called separately, as one of them > > will be called by the idle governor in the cpuidle_select() code > > path after subsequent changes. > > > > Update the former callers of tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick() to use > > the new routines, tick_nohz_next_event() and tick_nohz_stop_tick(), > > instead of it and move the updates of the sleep_length field in > > struct tick_sched into __tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick() as it doesn't > > need to be updated anywhere else. > > > > There should be no intentional visible changes in functionality > > resulting from this change. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > > Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frede...@kernel.org> > > Thanks! And sorry for the slow reviews, the changes are sensitive
Right, very much so. > and I want to make sure we are not breaking some subtlety. Thanks a lot for doing that!