Re: RFC: revert request for cpuidle patches e11538d1 and 69a37bea

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Saturday, July 27, 2013 02:22:53 AM Len Brown wrote:
> >> OK, I'll queue up the reverts as fixes for 3.11-rc4.
> >
> > So, the reverts are on the fixes-next branch of the linux-pm.git tree that you
> > can access at
> >
> > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git/log/?h=fixes-next
> >
> > However, they are not simple reverts as we've had some non-trivial changes on
> > top of those commits already, so I'd appreciate it a lot if somebody could
> > double check if I didn't break anything in them.
> 
> I've verified that the reverts improve netperf TCP_RR performance.
> 
> Here I've got two Xeon's, slightly different, so I run in both directions.
> Also I run two ways -- Out-of-the-box, plus with cpufreq
> set to max frequency.  The reverts improve all 4 cases:
> 
> JKT → IVT                IVT → JKT
> 
>  3.11.0-rc2        baseline w/o revert                Out of Box
> 
> 20420                19963
> 20658                19915
> 20298                20320
> 
>  3.11.0-rc2        baseline w/o revert                max freq
> 
> 59658                51427
> 59663                51503
> 59416                51343
> 
> 3.11.0-rc2-00002-g74bce39                        Linux-pm “fixes-next” branch
> 
> 3.11.0-rc2-00002-g74bce39                Out of box
> 23227                22056
> 23306                22125
> 23387                40226                40k result saw some 2.2 ghz
> vs 1.2 ghz in other runs
>                 21991
> 
> 3.11.0-rc2-00002-g74bce39                Max-freq
> 67240                57645
> 64880                56764
> 65924                57435
> 
> Tested-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

Many thanks Len!

Rafael