Hi Luca,
On Wednesday 06 Jun 2018 at 23:05:36 (+0200), luca abeni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 14:20:46 +0100
> Quentin Perret wrote:
> [...]
> > > However, IMHO, these are corner cases and in the average case it is
> > > better to rely on running_bw and reduce the CPU frequency
> > >
Hi Luca,
On Wednesday 06 Jun 2018 at 23:05:36 (+0200), luca abeni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 14:20:46 +0100
> Quentin Perret wrote:
> [...]
> > > However, IMHO, these are corner cases and in the average case it is
> > > better to rely on running_bw and reduce the CPU frequency
> > >
Hi all,
sorry; I missed the beginning of this thread... Anyway, below I add
some comments:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:05:58 +0200
Claudio Scordino wrote:
[...]
> >> Ok, I see ... Have you guys already tried something like my patch
> >> above (keeping the freq >= this_bw) in real world use cases ? Is
Hi all,
sorry; I missed the beginning of this thread... Anyway, below I add
some comments:
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:05:58 +0200
Claudio Scordino wrote:
[...]
> >> Ok, I see ... Have you guys already tried something like my patch
> >> above (keeping the freq >= this_bw) in real world use cases ? Is
Hi,
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 14:20:46 +0100
Quentin Perret wrote:
[...]
> > However, IMHO, these are corner cases and in the average case it is
> > better to rely on running_bw and reduce the CPU frequency
> > accordingly.
>
> My point was that accepting to go at a lower frequency than required
>
Hi,
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 14:20:46 +0100
Quentin Perret wrote:
[...]
> > However, IMHO, these are corner cases and in the average case it is
> > better to rely on running_bw and reduce the CPU frequency
> > accordingly.
>
> My point was that accepting to go at a lower frequency than required
>
On Wednesday 06 Jun 2018 at 15:53:27 (+0200), Claudio Scordino wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
>
> 2018-06-06 15:20 GMT+02:00 Quentin Perret :
> >
> > Hi Claudio,
> >
> > On Wednesday 06 Jun 2018 at 15:05:58 (+0200), Claudio Scordino wrote:
> > > Hi Quentin,
> > >
> > > Il 05/06/2018 16:13, Juri Lelli ha
On Wednesday 06 Jun 2018 at 15:53:27 (+0200), Claudio Scordino wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
>
> 2018-06-06 15:20 GMT+02:00 Quentin Perret :
> >
> > Hi Claudio,
> >
> > On Wednesday 06 Jun 2018 at 15:05:58 (+0200), Claudio Scordino wrote:
> > > Hi Quentin,
> > >
> > > Il 05/06/2018 16:13, Juri Lelli ha
Hi Quentin,
2018-06-06 15:20 GMT+02:00 Quentin Perret :
>
> Hi Claudio,
>
> On Wednesday 06 Jun 2018 at 15:05:58 (+0200), Claudio Scordino wrote:
> > Hi Quentin,
> >
> > Il 05/06/2018 16:13, Juri Lelli ha scritto:
> > > On 05/06/18 15:01, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at
Hi Quentin,
2018-06-06 15:20 GMT+02:00 Quentin Perret :
>
> Hi Claudio,
>
> On Wednesday 06 Jun 2018 at 15:05:58 (+0200), Claudio Scordino wrote:
> > Hi Quentin,
> >
> > Il 05/06/2018 16:13, Juri Lelli ha scritto:
> > > On 05/06/18 15:01, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at
Hi Claudio,
On Wednesday 06 Jun 2018 at 15:05:58 (+0200), Claudio Scordino wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
>
> Il 05/06/2018 16:13, Juri Lelli ha scritto:
> > On 05/06/18 15:01, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:15:18 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > On 05/06/18 14:05, Quentin
Hi Claudio,
On Wednesday 06 Jun 2018 at 15:05:58 (+0200), Claudio Scordino wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
>
> Il 05/06/2018 16:13, Juri Lelli ha scritto:
> > On 05/06/18 15:01, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:15:18 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > On 05/06/18 14:05, Quentin
Hi Quentin,
Il 05/06/2018 16:13, Juri Lelli ha scritto:
On 05/06/18 15:01, Quentin Perret wrote:
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:15:18 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
On 05/06/18 14:05, Quentin Perret wrote:
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 14:11:53 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
Hi Quentin,
On 05/06/18
Hi Quentin,
Il 05/06/2018 16:13, Juri Lelli ha scritto:
On 05/06/18 15:01, Quentin Perret wrote:
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:15:18 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
On 05/06/18 14:05, Quentin Perret wrote:
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 14:11:53 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
Hi Quentin,
On 05/06/18
On Wednesday 06 Jun 2018 at 11:59:04 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 6 June 2018 at 11:44, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 16:18:09 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> > On 4 June 2018 at 18:50, Peter
On Wednesday 06 Jun 2018 at 11:59:04 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 6 June 2018 at 11:44, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 16:18:09 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> > On 4 June 2018 at 18:50, Peter
On 6 June 2018 at 11:59, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 6 June 2018 at 11:44, Quentin Perret wrote:
>> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 16:18:09 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[snip]
>>>
>>> > As you mentioned, scale_rt_capacity give the remaining capacity for
>>> > cfs and it will behave like cfs
On 6 June 2018 at 11:59, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 6 June 2018 at 11:44, Quentin Perret wrote:
>> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 16:18:09 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[snip]
>>>
>>> > As you mentioned, scale_rt_capacity give the remaining capacity for
>>> > cfs and it will behave like cfs
On 6 June 2018 at 11:44, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 16:18:09 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > On 4 June 2018 at 18:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> > > So this patch-set tracks the !cfs occupation using
On 6 June 2018 at 11:44, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 16:18:09 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > On 4 June 2018 at 18:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> > > So this patch-set tracks the !cfs occupation using
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 16:18:09 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 4 June 2018 at 18:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > So this patch-set tracks the !cfs occupation using the same function,
> > > which is all good. But what,
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 16:18:09 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 4 June 2018 at 18:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > So this patch-set tracks the !cfs occupation using the same function,
> > > which is all good. But what,
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 04:38:26PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 05-Jun 16:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > As you mentioned, scale_rt_capacity give the remaining capacity for
> > > cfs and it will behave like cfs util_avg
On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 04:38:26PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 05-Jun 16:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > As you mentioned, scale_rt_capacity give the remaining capacity for
> > > cfs and it will behave like cfs util_avg
On 05-Jun 16:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 4 June 2018 at 18:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > So this patch-set tracks the !cfs occupation using the same function,
> > > which is all good. But what, if instead of using that
On 05-Jun 16:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 4 June 2018 at 18:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > So this patch-set tracks the !cfs occupation using the same function,
> > > which is all good. But what, if instead of using that
On 05/06/18 16:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
[...]
> > As you mentioned, scale_rt_capacity give the remaining capacity for
> > cfs and it will behave like cfs util_avg now that it uses PELT. So as
> > long as cfs util_avg <
On 05/06/18 16:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
[...]
> > As you mentioned, scale_rt_capacity give the remaining capacity for
> > cfs and it will behave like cfs util_avg now that it uses PELT. So as
> > long as cfs util_avg <
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:09:54 (+0100), Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:55:43 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 5 June 2018 at 15:52, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:18:38 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > >> On 5 June 2018 at 15:12,
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:09:54 (+0100), Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:55:43 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 5 June 2018 at 15:52, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:18:38 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > >> On 5 June 2018 at 15:12,
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 4 June 2018 at 18:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So this patch-set tracks the !cfs occupation using the same function,
> > which is all good. But what, if instead of using that to compensate the
> > OPP selection, we employ
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 4 June 2018 at 18:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So this patch-set tracks the !cfs occupation using the same function,
> > which is all good. But what, if instead of using that to compensate the
> > OPP selection, we employ
On 05/06/18 15:01, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:15:18 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 05/06/18 14:05, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 14:11:53 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > Hi Quentin,
> > > >
> > > > On 05/06/18 11:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
>
On 05/06/18 15:01, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:15:18 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 05/06/18 14:05, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 14:11:53 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > Hi Quentin,
> > > >
> > > > On 05/06/18 11:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
>
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:55:43 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 5 June 2018 at 15:52, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:18:38 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On 5 June 2018 at 15:12, Quentin Perret wrote:
> >> I would say no because when one will decrease the
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:55:43 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 5 June 2018 at 15:52, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:18:38 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On 5 June 2018 at 15:12, Quentin Perret wrote:
> >> I would say no because when one will decrease the
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:15:18 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 05/06/18 14:05, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 14:11:53 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > Hi Quentin,
> > >
> > > On 05/06/18 11:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > What about the diff
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:15:18 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 05/06/18 14:05, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 14:11:53 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > Hi Quentin,
> > >
> > > On 05/06/18 11:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > What about the diff
On 5 June 2018 at 15:52, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:18:38 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 5 June 2018 at 15:12, Quentin Perret wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 13:59:56 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >> On 5 June 2018 at 12:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
>>
On 5 June 2018 at 15:52, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:18:38 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 5 June 2018 at 15:12, Quentin Perret wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 13:59:56 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >> On 5 June 2018 at 12:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
>>
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:18:38 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 5 June 2018 at 15:12, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 13:59:56 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On 5 June 2018 at 12:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
> >> > Hi Vincent,
> >> >
> >> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:18:38 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 5 June 2018 at 15:12, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 13:59:56 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On 5 June 2018 at 12:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
> >> > Hi Vincent,
> >> >
> >> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018
On 5 June 2018 at 15:12, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 13:59:56 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 5 June 2018 at 12:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
>> > Hi Vincent,
>> >
>> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 10:36:26 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >> Hi Quentin,
>> >>
>> >> On 25
On 5 June 2018 at 15:12, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 13:59:56 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 5 June 2018 at 12:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
>> > Hi Vincent,
>> >
>> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 10:36:26 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >> Hi Quentin,
>> >>
>> >> On 25
On 05/06/18 14:05, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 14:11:53 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi Quentin,
> >
> > On 05/06/18 11:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > What about the diff below (just a quick hack to show the idea) applied
> > > on tip/sched/core ?
> >
On 05/06/18 14:05, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 14:11:53 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi Quentin,
> >
> > On 05/06/18 11:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > What about the diff below (just a quick hack to show the idea) applied
> > > on tip/sched/core ?
> >
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 13:59:56 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 5 June 2018 at 12:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 10:36:26 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> Hi Quentin,
> >>
> >> On 25 May 2018 at 15:12, Vincent Guittot
> >> wrote:
> >> >
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 13:59:56 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 5 June 2018 at 12:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 10:36:26 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> Hi Quentin,
> >>
> >> On 25 May 2018 at 15:12, Vincent Guittot
> >> wrote:
> >> >
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 14:11:53 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
>
> On 05/06/18 11:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > What about the diff below (just a quick hack to show the idea) applied
> > on tip/sched/core ?
> >
> > ---8<---
> > diff --git
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 14:11:53 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
>
> On 05/06/18 11:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > What about the diff below (just a quick hack to show the idea) applied
> > on tip/sched/core ?
> >
> > ---8<---
> > diff --git
Hi Quentin,
On 05/06/18 11:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
[...]
> What about the diff below (just a quick hack to show the idea) applied
> on tip/sched/core ?
>
> ---8<---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index a8ba6d1f262a..23a4fb1c2c25 100644
Hi Quentin,
On 05/06/18 11:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
[...]
> What about the diff below (just a quick hack to show the idea) applied
> on tip/sched/core ?
>
> ---8<---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index a8ba6d1f262a..23a4fb1c2c25 100644
On 5 June 2018 at 12:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 10:36:26 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Hi Quentin,
>>
>> On 25 May 2018 at 15:12, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > This patchset initially tracked only the utilization of RT rq. During
>> > OSPM summit, it
On 5 June 2018 at 12:57, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 10:36:26 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Hi Quentin,
>>
>> On 25 May 2018 at 15:12, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > This patchset initially tracked only the utilization of RT rq. During
>> > OSPM summit, it
Hi Vincent,
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 10:36:26 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
>
> On 25 May 2018 at 15:12, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > This patchset initially tracked only the utilization of RT rq. During
> > OSPM summit, it has been discussed the opportunity to extend it in order
Hi Vincent,
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 10:36:26 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
>
> On 25 May 2018 at 15:12, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > This patchset initially tracked only the utilization of RT rq. During
> > OSPM summit, it has been discussed the opportunity to extend it in order
Hi Quentin,
On 25 May 2018 at 15:12, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> This patchset initially tracked only the utilization of RT rq. During
> OSPM summit, it has been discussed the opportunity to extend it in order
> to get an estimate of the utilization of the CPU.
>
> - Patches 1-3 correspond to the
Hi Quentin,
On 25 May 2018 at 15:12, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> This patchset initially tracked only the utilization of RT rq. During
> OSPM summit, it has been discussed the opportunity to extend it in order
> to get an estimate of the utilization of the CPU.
>
> - Patches 1-3 correspond to the
On 4 June 2018 at 18:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:12:21PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> When both cfs and rt tasks compete to run on a CPU, we can see some frequency
>> drops with schedutil governor. In such case, the cfs_rq's utilization doesn't
>> reflect anymore
On 4 June 2018 at 18:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:12:21PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> When both cfs and rt tasks compete to run on a CPU, we can see some frequency
>> drops with schedutil governor. In such case, the cfs_rq's utilization doesn't
>> reflect anymore
On Monday 04 Jun 2018 at 18:50:47 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:12:21PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > When both cfs and rt tasks compete to run on a CPU, we can see some
> > frequency
> > drops with schedutil governor. In such case, the cfs_rq's utilization
> >
On Monday 04 Jun 2018 at 18:50:47 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:12:21PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > When both cfs and rt tasks compete to run on a CPU, we can see some
> > frequency
> > drops with schedutil governor. In such case, the cfs_rq's utilization
> >
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:12:21PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> When both cfs and rt tasks compete to run on a CPU, we can see some frequency
> drops with schedutil governor. In such case, the cfs_rq's utilization doesn't
> reflect anymore the utilization of cfs tasks but only the remaining
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:12:21PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> When both cfs and rt tasks compete to run on a CPU, we can see some frequency
> drops with schedutil governor. In such case, the cfs_rq's utilization doesn't
> reflect anymore the utilization of cfs tasks but only the remaining
This patchset initially tracked only the utilization of RT rq. During
OSPM summit, it has been discussed the opportunity to extend it in order
to get an estimate of the utilization of the CPU.
- Patches 1-3 correspond to the content of patchset v4 and add utilization
tracking for rt_rq.
When
This patchset initially tracked only the utilization of RT rq. During
OSPM summit, it has been discussed the opportunity to extend it in order
to get an estimate of the utilization of the CPU.
- Patches 1-3 correspond to the content of patchset v4 and add utilization
tracking for rt_rq.
When
66 matches
Mail list logo
