Hi Saravana,
On 29/01/16 16:57, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On 01/11/2016 09:35 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >In the context of the ongoing discussion about introducing a simple platform
> >energy model to guide scheduling decisions (Energy Aware Scheduling [1])
> >concerns have been
Hi Saravana,
On 29/01/16 16:57, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On 01/11/2016 09:35 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >In the context of the ongoing discussion about introducing a simple platform
> >energy model to guide scheduling decisions (Energy Aware Scheduling [1])
> >concerns have been
On 29-01-16, 16:57, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> I haven't looked at the cpufreq-tests, but I doubt they do hotplug testing
> where they remove all the CPUs of a policy (to trigger a policy exit).
They do.
--
viresh
On 29-01-16, 16:57, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> I haven't looked at the cpufreq-tests, but I doubt they do hotplug testing
> where they remove all the CPUs of a policy (to trigger a policy exit).
They do.
--
viresh
On 01/11/2016 09:35 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
Hi all,
In the context of the ongoing discussion about introducing a simple platform
energy model to guide scheduling decisions (Energy Aware Scheduling [1])
concerns have been expressed by Peter about the component in charge of driving
clock frequency
On 01/11/2016 09:35 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
Hi all,
In the context of the ongoing discussion about introducing a simple platform
energy model to guide scheduling decisions (Energy Aware Scheduling [1])
concerns have been expressed by Peter about the component in charge of driving
clock frequency
6 matches
Mail list logo
