On Tuesday 29 May 2018 at 17:02:29 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
>
> On 29 May 2018 at 16:55, Quentin Perret wrote:
> >
> > On Friday 25 May 2018 at 19:04:55 (+0100), Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > On 25-May 15:26, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > > And also, I understand these
On Tuesday 29 May 2018 at 17:02:29 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
>
> On 29 May 2018 at 16:55, Quentin Perret wrote:
> >
> > On Friday 25 May 2018 at 19:04:55 (+0100), Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > On 25-May 15:26, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > > And also, I understand these
Hi Quentin,
On 29 May 2018 at 16:55, Quentin Perret wrote:
>
> On Friday 25 May 2018 at 19:04:55 (+0100), Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On 25-May 15:26, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > And also, I understand these functions are large, but if we _really_
> > > want to inline them even though they're
Hi Quentin,
On 29 May 2018 at 16:55, Quentin Perret wrote:
>
> On Friday 25 May 2018 at 19:04:55 (+0100), Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On 25-May 15:26, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > And also, I understand these functions are large, but if we _really_
> > > want to inline them even though they're
On Friday 25 May 2018 at 19:04:55 (+0100), Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 25-May 15:26, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > And also, I understand these functions are large, but if we _really_
> > want to inline them even though they're big, why not putting them in
> > sched-pelt.h ?
>
> Had the same tought
On Friday 25 May 2018 at 19:04:55 (+0100), Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 25-May 15:26, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > And also, I understand these functions are large, but if we _really_
> > want to inline them even though they're big, why not putting them in
> > sched-pelt.h ?
>
> Had the same tought
On Friday 25 May 2018 at 18:14:23 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:26:48PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > (both quite old TBH -- 4.9.4 for arm64, 4.8.4 for x86).
>
> You really should try with a more recent compiler.
Right, so I just gave it a try for x86 with gcc
On Friday 25 May 2018 at 18:14:23 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:26:48PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > (both quite old TBH -- 4.9.4 for arm64, 4.8.4 for x86).
>
> You really should try with a more recent compiler.
Right, so I just gave it a try for x86 with gcc
On 25-May 15:26, Quentin Perret wrote:
> And also, I understand these functions are large, but if we _really_
> want to inline them even though they're big, why not putting them in
> sched-pelt.h ?
Had the same tought at first... but then I recalled that header is
generated from a script. Thus,
On 25-May 15:26, Quentin Perret wrote:
> And also, I understand these functions are large, but if we _really_
> want to inline them even though they're big, why not putting them in
> sched-pelt.h ?
Had the same tought at first... but then I recalled that header is
generated from a script. Thus,
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:26:48PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> (both quite old TBH -- 4.9.4 for arm64, 4.8.4 for x86).
You really should try with a more recent compiler.
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 03:26:48PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> (both quite old TBH -- 4.9.4 for arm64, 4.8.4 for x86).
You really should try with a more recent compiler.
Hi Vincent,
On Friday 25 May 2018 at 15:12:22 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> We want to track rt_rq's utilization as a part of the estimation of the
> whole rq's utilization. This is necessary because rt tasks can steal
> utilization to cfs tasks and make them lighter than they are.
> As we
Hi Vincent,
On Friday 25 May 2018 at 15:12:22 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> We want to track rt_rq's utilization as a part of the estimation of the
> whole rq's utilization. This is necessary because rt tasks can steal
> utilization to cfs tasks and make them lighter than they are.
> As we
We want to track rt_rq's utilization as a part of the estimation of the
whole rq's utilization. This is necessary because rt tasks can steal
utilization to cfs tasks and make them lighter than they are.
As we want to use the same load tracking mecanism for both and prevent
useless dependency
We want to track rt_rq's utilization as a part of the estimation of the
whole rq's utilization. This is necessary because rt tasks can steal
utilization to cfs tasks and make them lighter than they are.
As we want to use the same load tracking mecanism for both and prevent
useless dependency
16 matches
Mail list logo
