On 9/8/2023 3:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 03:30:43PM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote: >> >> >> On 9/8/2023 3:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 01:08:07PM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote: >>> >>>>> Perhaps we should start off by doing the below, instead of making it >>>>> more complicated instead. I suppose you're right about the overhead, but >>>>> run a hackbench just to make sure or something. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I ran perf bench sched message -g 40 -l 40 with the v3 patch [1]. After 60 >>>> iterations each, I don't see a significant difference on my arm64 platform: >>>> both samples ~normal and ~eq variance w/t-test p-value: 0.79. >>>> >>>> We also ran typical high level benchmarks for our SoCs (antutu, >>>> geekbench, et. al) and didn't see any regressions there. >>> >>> So if you would've made this 2 patches, the first removing the ifdef, >>> then the changelog for that patch would be a good place to mention it >>> doesn't measurably regress things. >> >> No problem, easily done. >> >>> As a bonus, it then makes your other changes smaller too ;-) >> >> Did you mean that each commit is smaller but overall delta is the same >> or something else? > > That. > >> I still wanted to update comments on saved_state in >> kernel/sched/core.c as it gives good explanation of what is going on. I >> have split the commit but want to make sure I make the changes you were >> thinking :-) > > well, it's nearly 1am, I'm not thinking very much :-) Changing those > comments seems fine when you add the freezer thing. I was wondering what time zone you are in, I saw your previous replies are early in my morning. I think you are giving Greg a run for his money with responses at all hours :-) I sent v4 with the changes split: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230908-avoid-spurious-freezer-wakeups-v4-0-6155aa3dafae@xxxxxxxxxxx/
