Message-ID: <51F2BF8C.7010308@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:27:24 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
CC: Jeremy Eder <jeder@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, youquan.song@intel.com,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
        len.brown@intel.com
Subject: Re: RFC:  revert request for cpuidle patches e11538d1 and 69a37bea
References: <20130726173306.GB17985@jeder.rdu.redhat.com> <51F2BC31.7000407@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <51F2BC31.7000407@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 810
Lines: 22

On 7/26/2013 11:13 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:

>
> Could you try running the tests with just the repeat mode
> stuff from commit 69a37bea excluded, but leaving the common
> infrastructure and commit e11538?
>

personally I think we should go the other way around.
revert the set entirely first, and now, and get our performance back
to what it should be

and then see what we can add back without causing the regressions.
this may take longer, or be done in steps, and that's ok.

the end point may well be the same... but we can then evaluate in the right
direction.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/