On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On 23 June 2016 at 16:35, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> Hi, Thomas. If the entry,exit,min time of one idle state sums up to
> >> 500us in some platform, the 100us callback which should be common as
> >> caused by cache miss would also generate 20% impreci
On 23 June 2016 at 16:35, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> On 23 June 2016 at 16:18, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> >> On 23 June 2016 at 15:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> >> Thomas, I agree with you, I have discusse
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On 23 June 2016 at 16:18, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> >> On 23 June 2016 at 15:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> Thomas, I agree with you, I have discussed the modification with the
> >> call back owner. Howeve
On 23 June 2016 at 16:18, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> On 23 June 2016 at 15:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Thomas, I agree with you, I have discussed the modification with the
>> call back owner. However, I wonder if we can make the idle's framework
>> to
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On 23 June 2016 at 15:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Thomas, I agree with you, I have discussed the modification with the
> call back owner. However, I wonder if we can make the idle's framework
> to be more precised without the assumption of short CPU_PM
On 23 June 2016 at 15:01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> On 20 June 2016 at 09:14, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> > On 17 June 2016 at 19:50, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> >>> On 17 June 2016 at 17:27, Thomas Gleixner
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On 20 June 2016 at 09:14, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > On 17 June 2016 at 19:50, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> >>> On 17 June 2016 at 17:27, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wro
On 20 June 2016 at 09:14, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On 17 June 2016 at 19:50, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>>> On 17 June 2016 at 17:27, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>>> >> There should be a gap between tick_nohz_id
On 17 June 2016 at 19:50, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> On 17 June 2016 at 17:27, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> >> There should be a gap between tick_nohz_idle_enter and
>> >> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length when idle
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> On 17 June 2016 at 17:27, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> >> There should be a gap between tick_nohz_idle_enter and
> >> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length when idle, which will cause the
> >> sleep_length is not very pre
On 17 June 2016 at 17:27, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
>> There should be a gap between tick_nohz_idle_enter and
>> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length when idle, which will cause the
>> sleep_length is not very precised. Change it in this patch.
>
> What kind of impr
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> There should be a gap between tick_nohz_idle_enter and
> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length when idle, which will cause the
> sleep_length is not very precised. Change it in this patch.
What kind of imprecision are we talking about? Seconds, nanoseconds or
ligh
There should be a gap between tick_nohz_idle_enter and
tick_nohz_get_sleep_length when idle, which will cause the
sleep_length is not very precised. Change it in this patch.
Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang
---
kernel/time/tick-sched.c |5 +
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/ker
13 matches
Mail list logo
