On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 04:34:37 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 03:27:30AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, August 26, 2016 11:40:47 AM Steve Muckle wrote:
> > > PELT does not consider SMT when scaling its utilization values via
> > > arch_scale_cpu_capacity(
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 03:27:30AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 26, 2016 11:40:47 AM Steve Muckle wrote:
> > PELT does not consider SMT when scaling its utilization values via
> > arch_scale_cpu_capacity(). The value in rq->cpu_capacity_orig does
> > take SMT into considerati
On Friday, August 26, 2016 11:40:47 AM Steve Muckle wrote:
> PELT does not consider SMT when scaling its utilization values via
> arch_scale_cpu_capacity(). The value in rq->cpu_capacity_orig does
> take SMT into consideration though and therefore may be smaller than
> the utilization reported by P
PELT does not consider SMT when scaling its utilization values via
arch_scale_cpu_capacity(). The value in rq->cpu_capacity_orig does
take SMT into consideration though and therefore may be smaller than
the utilization reported by PELT.
On an Intel i7-3630QM for example rq->cpu_capacity_orig is 58
4 matches
Mail list logo