Petri, do you want to test performance before patch inclusion? Maxim.
On 21 June 2017 at 21:52, Honnappa Nagarahalli < [email protected]> wrote: > We have not run any performance application. In our Linaro connect > meeting, we presented numbers on how it improves the timer resolution. > At this point, there is enough configuration options to control the > effect of calling timer in the scheduler. For applications that do not > want to use the timer, there should not be any change. For > applications that use timers non-frequently, the check frequency can > be controlled via the provided configuration options. > > On 20 June 2017 at 02:34, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Do you have some performance numbers? E.g. how much this slows down an > application which does not use timers (e.g. l2fwd), or an application that > uses only few, non-frequent timeouts? > > > > Additionally, init.h/feature.h is not yet in api-next - so this would > not build yet. > > > > > > -Petri > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: lng-odp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > >> Honnappa Nagarahalli > >> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 7:07 AM > >> To: Bill Fischofer <[email protected]> > >> Cc: lng-odp-forward <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v4] timer: allow timer processing > >> to run on worker cores > >> > >> Are you saying we should be good to merge this now? > >> > >> On 19 June 2017 at 17:42, Bill Fischofer <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Honnappa Nagarahalli > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hi Bill/Maxim, > >> >> I do not see any further comments, can we merge this to api-next? > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> Honnappa > > > > >
