On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 12:14 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 26-07-17, 23:13, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Viresh Kumar
>> wrote:
>> > On 26-07-17, 22:34, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Viresh Kumar
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 12:44:41PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Even that was discussed tomorrow with Peter :)
Just to clarify I don't have a time machine. That discussion was
_yesterday_,... I think :-)
On 26-07-17, 23:13, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Viresh Kumar
> wrote:
> > On 26-07-17, 22:34, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Viresh Kumar
> >> wrote:
> >> > @@ -221,7 +226,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct
>
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 26-07-17, 22:34, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Viresh Kumar
>> wrote:
>> > @@ -221,7 +226,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct
>> > update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>> > sugov_set_iow
On 26-07-17, 22:34, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > @@ -221,7 +226,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data
> > *hook, u64 time,
> > sugov_set_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, time, flags);
> > sg_cpu->last_update =
Hi Viresh,
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> We do not call cpufreq callbacks from scheduler core for remote
> (non-local) CPUs currently. But there are cases where such remote
> callbacks are useful, specially in the case of shared cpufreq policies.
>
> This patch updates th
6 matches
Mail list logo