Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
From:   Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
To:     K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@suse.cz>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>,
        "Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/25] timer: Move from a push remote at enqueue to a
 pull at expiry model
In-Reply-To: <28563e2d-6746-e2c4-7d21-4ca39a82edc1@amd.com>
References: <20231004123454.15691-1-anna-maria@linutronix.de>
 <28563e2d-6746-e2c4-7d21-4ca39a82edc1@amd.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 15:55:57 +0200
Message-ID: <87jzri90nm.fsf@somnus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Hello Prateek,

K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com> writes:

> Hello Anna-Maria,
>
> Happy to report I don't see any regression with this version of series.
> I'll leave the detailed report below.

[...]

> Thank you for debugging and helping fix the tbench regression.
> If the series does not change drastically, feel free to add:
>
> Tested-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
>

Thanks a lot for all the testing you did! When posting v9, I'll
summarize the changes and if required, I'll ask for testing support, if
it is ok?

>> 
>> Possible Next Steps
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> 
>> Simple deferrable timers are no longer required as they can be converted to
>> global timers. If a CPU goes idle, a formerly deferrable timer will not
>> prevent the CPU to sleep as long as possible. Only the last migrator CPU
>> has to take care of them. Deferrable timers with timer pinned flags needs
>> to be expired on the specified CPU but must not prevent CPU from going
>> idle. They require their own timer base which is never taken into account
>> when calculating the next expiry time. This conversation and required
>> cleanup will be done in a follow up series.
>> 
>
> I'll keep an eye out for future versions for testing.

I'll keep you in the loop.

Thanks,

	Anna-Maria