On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 12:33:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:20:36PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The 6ms to 25ms range should be just fine as far as normal RCU grace
> > periods are concerned. However, it does mean that expedited grace
> > periods could be de
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:20:36PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The 6ms to 25ms range should be just fine as far as normal RCU grace
> periods are concerned. However, it does mean that expedited grace
> periods could be delayed: They normally take a few tens of microseconds,
> but if they were
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:04:53 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> People are starting to grow their own idle implementations in various
> disgusting ways. Collapse the lot and use the generic idle code to
> provide a proper idle cycle implementation.
>
+Paul
RCU and others rely on is_idle_task() might
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 20:38:03 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > but for powerclamp to work, it needs to inject a deep idle I'm
> > very ok using generic abstractions for that, but the abstraction
> > needs to then include a "don't be ni
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> but for powerclamp to work, it needs to inject a deep idle I'm
> very ok using generic abstractions for that, but the abstraction
> needs to then include a "don't be nice about picking shallow C
> states for performance reasons, just pick somet
On 11/20/2013 9:55 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On 11/20/2013 9:23 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On 11/20/2013 8:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
This does not fully preseve existing behaviour in that the generi
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 11/20/2013 9:23 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/20/2013 8:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > This does not fully preseve existing behaviour in that the generic
> > > > idle cycle functio
On 11/20/2013 9:23 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On 11/20/2013 8:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
This does not fully preseve existing behaviour in that the generic
idle cycle function calls into the normal cpuidle governed idle
routines and should thus re
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:40:49AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 11/20/2013 8:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >This does not fully preseve existing behaviour in that the generic
> >idle cycle function calls into the normal cpuidle governed idle
> >routines and should thus respect things like Q
People are starting to grow their own idle implementations in various
disgusting ways. Collapse the lot and use the generic idle code to
provide a proper idle cycle implementation.
This does not fully preseve existing behaviour in that the generic
idle cycle function calls into the normal cpuidle
10 matches
Mail list logo
