On 11/03/14 13:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 11 March 2014 11:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:32:35PM +0800, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Never got the new name DIE for CPU? Might confuse people when they use
/proc/sys/kernel/sched_domain/cpuX/domainY/name or
On 11 March 2014 11:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:32:35PM +0800, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > Never got the new name DIE for CPU? Might confuse people when they use
>> > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_domain/cpuX/domainY/name or
>> > sched_domain_debug_one().
>>
>> In fact, CPU
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:32:35PM +0800, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Never got the new name DIE for CPU? Might confuse people when they use
> > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_domain/cpuX/domainY/name or sched_domain_debug_one().
>
> In fact, CPU is also confusing because it's used for different things.
>
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:32:35PM +0800, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Never got the new name DIE for CPU? Might confuse people when they use
/proc/sys/kernel/sched_domain/cpuX/domainY/name or sched_domain_debug_one().
In fact, CPU is also confusing because it's used for different things.
But if
On 11 March 2014 11:31, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:32:35PM +0800, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Never got the new name DIE for CPU? Might confuse people when they use
/proc/sys/kernel/sched_domain/cpuX/domainY/name or
sched_domain_debug_one().
In fact,
On 11/03/14 13:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 11 March 2014 11:31, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:32:35PM +0800, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Never got the new name DIE for CPU? Might confuse people when they use
/proc/sys/kernel/sched_domain/cpuX/domainY/name
On 6 March 2014 01:09, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 05/03/14 07:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>
>> We replace the old way to configure the scheduler topology with a new
>> method
>> which enables a platform to declare additionnal level (if needed).
>>
>> We still have a default topology table
On 6 March 2014 01:09, Dietmar Eggemann dietmar.eggem...@arm.com wrote:
On 05/03/14 07:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
We replace the old way to configure the scheduler topology with a new
method
which enables a platform to declare additionnal level (if needed).
We still have a default topology
On 05/03/14 07:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
We replace the old way to configure the scheduler topology with a new method
which enables a platform to declare additionnal level (if needed).
We still have a default topology table definition that can be used by platform
that don't want more level
On 05/03/14 07:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
We replace the old way to configure the scheduler topology with a new method
which enables a platform to declare additionnal level (if needed).
We still have a default topology table definition that can be used by platform
that don't want more level
We replace the old way to configure the scheduler topology with a new method
which enables a platform to declare additionnal level (if needed).
We still have a default topology table definition that can be used by platform
that don't want more level than the SMT, MC, CPU and NUMA ones. This table
We replace the old way to configure the scheduler topology with a new method
which enables a platform to declare additionnal level (if needed).
We still have a default topology table definition that can be used by platform
that don't want more level than the SMT, MC, CPU and NUMA ones. This table
12 matches
Mail list logo
