On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:40:52 +1000 Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> writes: > > > local_irq_enable can cause interrupts to be taken which could > > take significant amount of processing time. The idle process > > should set its polling flag before this, so another process that > > wakes it during this time will not have to send an IPI. > > > > Expand the TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG coverage to as large as possible. > > > > Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> > > --- > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-powernv.c | 4 +++- > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-pseries.c | 3 ++- > > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > I don't think the cpuidle folks are really interested in these changes, > but we should Cc them to be polite. > > Can you resend patches 9, 10, 11 with a subject like: > > "cpuidle: powernv: Set polling ..." > > And Cc the cpuidle folks: > > $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f drivers/cpuidle > r...@rjwysocki.net > daniel.lezc...@linaro.org > linux...@vger.kernel.org > linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org Yeah I can do that. I'll send them as thier own series. They don't depend on any of the patches in this series, so I should have done that in the first place. Thanks, Nick
