On Tuesday 25 March 2014 07:27 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 25 March 2014 16:20, Sanjay Singh Rawat sanjay.rawat@linaro.org wrote:
With unbound type the next worker can be scheduled on other CPUs, while current CPU is busy servicing current worker
Its not that plain or simple. This flag only decides where the work is going to be queued. i.e. at the time we have added it and not the time the work has fired.
Ok. This fits in this scenario, runtime PM clients queue the suspend/resume/idle task dynamically based on activity
And the scheduler would try to find the best possible CPU for running this task and that may turn out to be the same CPU as well.. There is no guarantee here.
I am not against the patch as I think it is useful enough, but the reasoning needs to be more strong, backed by some experiments.
Yes need to have some stats, as i have few clients on panda i think it will not show much difference and so sent as RFC. I will try to get some stats.
Also for such small patches (i.e. patches which wouldn't draw much criticism), please use LKML directly. We at Linaro don't have any control over many kernel frameworks and it would be better if we discuss things more openly.
Though some typical patches might require a post to linaro-kernel first..
-- viresh