On 7 January 2014 14:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 01:48:02PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> *But wouldn't it make sense if we can tell scheduler that don't queue
>> these works on a CPU that is running in NO_HZ_FULL mode?*
>
> No,.. that's the wrong way around.
Hmm.. Just to
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 01:48:02PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> *But wouldn't it make sense if we can tell scheduler that don't queue
> these works on a CPU that is running in NO_HZ_FULL mode?*
No,.. that's the wrong way around.
> Also any suggestions on how to get rid of __prandom_timer events o
On 23 December 2013 13:48, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Wrong time, probably many people on vacation now. But I am working, so
> will continue reporting my problems, in case somebody is around :)
Ping!! (Probably many people would be back from their vacations.)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
Adding Ingo/Peter..
On 18 December 2013 20:03, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 18 December 2013 19:21, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Ah, I see. So you're basically asking why we can't evaluate whether to
>> turn off the tick more often, for example right after the workqueues are
>> done. I suppose Frederic
On 18 December 2013 19:21, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Ah, I see. So you're basically asking why we can't evaluate whether to
> turn off the tick more often, for example right after the workqueues are
> done. I suppose Frederic may have some views on that, but there's
> likely additional overhead from
5 matches
Mail list logo
