On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 09:47:06AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 16:54 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >
> >> So I did the same thing for my ARM SoC, and it definitley stops the RT
> >> throttling.
> >>
> >> However, it has the undesriable (IMO) s
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 16:54 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>
>> So I did the same thing for my ARM SoC, and it definitley stops the RT
>> throttling.
>>
>> However, it has the undesriable (IMO) side effect of making timed printk
>> output rather unhelpful for debugging sus
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 16:54 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> So I did the same thing for my ARM SoC, and it definitley stops the RT
> throttling.
>
> However, it has the undesriable (IMO) side effect of making timed printk
> output rather unhelpful for debugging suspend/resume since printk time
> s
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 08:51 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> > So the primary question remains: is RT runtime supposed to include the
>> > time spent suspended? I suspect not.
>>
>> you might be right there, though we need Thomas or Peter to answer :-s
>
> re, sorry both
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 08:51 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>> > So the primary question remains: is RT runtime supposed to include the
>> > time spent suspended? I suspect not.
>>
>> you might be right there, though we need Thomas or Peter to answer :-s
>
> re, sorry both
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 04:00:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 08:51 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > So the primary question remains: is RT runtime supposed to include the
> > > time spent suspended? I suspect not.
> >
> > you might be right there, though we need T
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 08:51 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > So the primary question remains: is RT runtime supposed to include the
> > time spent suspended? I suspect not.
>
> you might be right there, though we need Thomas or Peter to answer :-s
re, sorry both tglx and I have been traveling, h
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 04:06:54PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Felipe Balbi writes:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:00:02PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:39:50PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> > + peterz, tglx
> >> >
> >> > Felipe Balbi writes:
> >> >
> >>
Felipe Balbi writes:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:00:02PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:39:50PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> > + peterz, tglx
>> >
>> > Felipe Balbi writes:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > > The problem I see is that even though we properly return IRQ
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:39:50PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> + peterz, tglx
>
> Felipe Balbi writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > The problem I see is that even though we properly return IRQ_WAKE_THREAD
> > and wake_up_process() manages to wakeup the IRQ thread (it returns 1),
> > the thread is neve
10 matches
Mail list logo
