On Thursday, August 04, 2016 03:09:08 PM Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 11:19:00PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[cut]
> > > This is also an issue for the remote wakeup case where I currently have
> > > another invocation of the hook in check_preempt_curr(), so I can know if
>
On Thursday, August 04, 2016 03:09:08 PM Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 11:19:00PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[cut]
> > > This is also an issue for the remote wakeup case where I currently have
> > > another invocation of the hook in check_preempt_curr(), so I can know if
>
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 11:19:00PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 03, 2016 07:24:18 PM Steve Muckle wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:38:20AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Steve Muckle
> > > wrote:
> >
On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 11:19:00PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 03, 2016 07:24:18 PM Steve Muckle wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:38:20AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Steve Muckle
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016
On Wednesday, August 03, 2016 07:24:18 PM Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:38:20AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Steve Muckle
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 03:37:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >>
On Wednesday, August 03, 2016 07:24:18 PM Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:38:20AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Steve Muckle
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 03:37:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:38:20AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 03:37:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Steve Muckle
>
On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:38:20AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 03:37:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Steve Muckle
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 03:37:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:37:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 03:37:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:37:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > ...
>> >> For this purpose, define a new
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 03:37:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:37:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > ...
> >> For this purpose, define a new cpufreq_update_util() flag
> >>
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 03:37:02AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:37:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > ...
> >> For this purpose, define a new cpufreq_update_util() flag
> >> UUF_IO and modify
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:37:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> ...
>> For this purpose, define a new cpufreq_update_util() flag
>> UUF_IO and modify enqueue_task_fair() to pass that flag to
>>
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:37:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> ...
>> For this purpose, define a new cpufreq_update_util() flag
>> UUF_IO and modify enqueue_task_fair() to pass that flag to
>> cpufreq_update_util() in the in_iowait case.
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:37:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
...
> For this purpose, define a new cpufreq_update_util() flag
> UUF_IO and modify enqueue_task_fair() to pass that flag to
> cpufreq_update_util() in the in_iowait case. That generally
> requires cpufreq_update_util() to be
On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:37:23AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
...
> For this purpose, define a new cpufreq_update_util() flag
> UUF_IO and modify enqueue_task_fair() to pass that flag to
> cpufreq_update_util() in the in_iowait case. That generally
> requires cpufreq_update_util() to be
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Testing indicates that it is possible to improve performace
significantly without increasing energy consumption too much by
teaching cpufreq governors to bump up the CPU performance level if
the in_iowait flag is set for the task in
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Testing indicates that it is possible to improve performace
significantly without increasing energy consumption too much by
teaching cpufreq governors to bump up the CPU performance level if
the in_iowait flag is set for the task in enqueue_task_fair().
For this purpose,
18 matches
Mail list logo