> Sure, add these test results to the patch as well showing reduced wakeups.
>
> I would say submit the freezable_schedule as a single separate patch
> independent of the vsoc series since it can go in separately, and also
> benefits other things than vsoc.
>
> Also CC Rafael (power maintainer)
On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 12:30:50AM +0100, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> > I'm curious did you try the freezing process and see if pointless wakeups
> > are
> > reduced? That would be an added bonus if you did.
>
> I'm currently testing these changes. I hope to be able to come back with
>
Hi,
> > The result is a potential performance gain during freeze, since less
> > tasks have to be awaken.
>
> I'm curious did you try the freezing process and see if pointless wakeups are
> reduced? That would be an added bonus if you did.
Test env: fresh Debian QEMU vm with 4.19 stable
Hi Joel,
> I'm curious did you try the freezing process and see if pointless wakeups are
> reduced? That would be an added bonus if you did.
I'm currently testing these changes. I hope to be able to come back with
more concrete results soon.
Also, I just noticed that the third patch removes a
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 06:38:05AM +0100, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote:
> Replace schedule(); try_to_freeze() by freezable_schedule().
>
> Tasks calling freezable_schedule() set the PF_FREEZER_SKIP flag
> before calling schedule(). Unlike tasks calling schedule();
> try_to_freeze() tasks calling
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 06:38:05AM +0100, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote:
> Replace schedule(); try_to_freeze() by freezable_schedule().
>
> Tasks calling freezable_schedule() set the PF_FREEZER_SKIP flag
> before calling schedule(). Unlike tasks calling schedule();
> try_to_freeze() tasks calling
6 matches
Mail list logo
