Hi,
On 15/12/15 17:45, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:28:37PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:17:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > Obviously people are going to get upset if we introduce performance
> > > regressions - but that's true always, we can a
On 15 December 2015 at 18:15, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:59:34PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 15 December 2015 at 17:41, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:23:18PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:57:37PM +, Mark Rutl
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:28:37PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:17:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Obviously people are going to get upset if we introduce performance
> > regressions - but that's true always, we can also introduce problems
> > with numbers people have
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:17:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:32:19PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:08:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:01:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > > > I really don't want to see a tab
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 06:10:03PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:45:16PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > I'm not sure I follow w.r.t. "inherently less information", unless you
> > > mean trying to debug without access to that DTB?
> > If what the kernel knows about the sy
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 06:47:20PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 15 December 2015 at 18:15, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:59:34PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On 15 December 2015 at 17:41, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:23:18PM +, Catalin
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:45:16PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:28:37PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:17:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > Obviously people are going to get upset if we introduce performance
> > > regressions - but that's tru
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:32:19PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:08:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:01:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > I really don't want to see a table of magic numbers in the kernel.
> > Right, there's pitfalls there
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:59:34PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 15 December 2015 at 17:41, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:23:18PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:57:37PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:46:51PM +00
On 15 December 2015 at 17:41, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:23:18PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:57:37PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:46:51PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> > > On 15/12/15 15:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> >
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:23:18PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:57:37PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:46:51PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > On 15/12/15 15:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:08:13PM +, Mark Brown
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:57:37PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:46:51PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 15/12/15 15:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:08:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > My expectation is that we just need good enough, not perfe
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:46:51PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 15/12/15 15:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:08:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > My expectation is that we just need good enough, not perfect, and that
> > > seems to match what Juri is saying about the expect
On 15/12/15 15:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:08:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:01:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > I really don't want to see a table of magic numbers in the kernel.
> >
> > Right, there's pitfalls there too although no
On 15/12/15 14:50, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:24:58PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
>
> Hi Juri,
>
> > On 15/12/15 14:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > I really don't want to see a table of magic numbers in the kernel.
> >
> > Doesn't seem to be a clean and scalable sol
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:08:13PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:01:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > I really don't want to see a table of magic numbers in the kernel.
>
> Right, there's pitfalls there too although not being part of an ABI
> does make them more manage
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:01:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> I really don't want to see a table of magic numbers in the kernel.
Right, there's pitfalls there too although not being part of an ABI
does make them more manageable.
One thing it's probably helpful to establish here is how much t
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:24:58PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Mark,
Hi Juri,
> On 15/12/15 14:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > I really don't want to see a table of magic numbers in the kernel.
>
> Doesn't seem to be a clean and scalable solution to me either. It is not
> easy to reconfigure when
Hi Mark,
On 15/12/15 14:01, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 01:39:51PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:22:38PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > So then why isn't it adequate to just have things like the core types in
> > > > there and work from there? Are we
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 01:39:51PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:22:38PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > So then why isn't it adequate to just have things like the core types in
> > > there and work from there? Are we really expecting the tuning to be so
> > > much better th
On 15 December 2015 at 13:22, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 14/12/15 16:59, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:36:16PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> > On 11/12/15 17:49, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>> > > The purpose of the capacity values is to influence the scheduler
>> > > behaviour and hence perf
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:22:38PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> I'm proposing to add a new value because I couldn't find any proxies in
> the current bindings that bring us any close to what we need. If I
> failed in looking for them, and they actually exists, I'll personally be
> more then happy to
On 14/12/15 16:59, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:36:16PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 11/12/15 17:49, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > The purpose of the capacity values is to influence the scheduler
> > > behaviour and hence performance. Without a concrete definition they're
> > > j
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:36:16PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 11/12/15 17:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> > The purpose of the capacity values is to influence the scheduler
> > behaviour and hence performance. Without a concrete definition they're
> > just magic numbers which have meaining only in ter
Hi Mark,
On 11/12/15 17:49, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:58:20PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 10/12/15 15:30, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:06:31PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>
> > > > In other words, I want to see these numbers have a defined method
> >
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 05:58:20PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 10/12/15 15:30, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:06:31PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > In other words, I want to see these numbers have a defined method
> > > of determining them and don't want to see random values
Hi,
On 10/12/15 14:14, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 01/12/15 11:20, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> > On 30/11/15 10:59, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> Hi Juri,
> >>
> >> On 24 November 2015 at 11:54, Juri Lelli wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > +==
>
Hi Mark,
I certainly understand your (and Rob's) concerns, but let me try anyway
to argument a bit more around this approach :-).
On 10/12/15 15:30, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:06:31PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>
> > I think you need something absolute and probably per MHz (li
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:06:31PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> I think you need something absolute and probably per MHz (like
> dynamic-power-coefficient property). Perhaps the IPC (instructions per
> clock) value?
> In other words, I want to see these numbers have a defined method
> of determ
On 01/12/15 11:20, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 30/11/15 10:59, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Hi Juri,
>>
>> On 24 November 2015 at 11:54, Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> +==
> +3 - capacity-scale
> +==
Hi Vincent,
On 30/11/15 10:59, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Juri,
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 11:54, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 23/11/15 20:06, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 02:28:35PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >> > ARM systems may be configured to have cpus with diffe
Hi Juri,
On 24 November 2015 at 11:54, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 23/11/15 20:06, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 02:28:35PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> > ARM systems may be configured to have cpus with different power/performance
>> > characteristics within the same chip. In th
Hi,
On 23/11/15 20:06, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 02:28:35PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > ARM systems may be configured to have cpus with different power/performance
> > characteristics within the same chip. In this case, additional information
> > has to be made available to the
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 02:28:35PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> ARM systems may be configured to have cpus with different power/performance
> characteristics within the same chip. In this case, additional information
> has to be made available to the kernel (the scheduler in particular) for it
> to b
ARM systems may be configured to have cpus with different power/performance
characteristics within the same chip. In this case, additional information
has to be made available to the kernel (the scheduler in particular) for it
to be aware of such differences and take decisions accordingly.
Therefo
35 matches
Mail list logo
