On 12 February 2014 20:36, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> The change I'm applying is strongly inspired from the above. Can I use your
> Signed-off-by?
Sure :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More
Hi Viresh,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:22:32AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> So the first question is why cpufreq needs it and is it really stupid?
> Yes, it is stupid but that's how its implemented since a long time. It does
> so to get data about the load on CPUs, so that freq
Hi Viresh,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:22:32AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Guys,
So the first question is why cpufreq needs it and is it really stupid?
Yes, it is stupid but that's how its implemented since a long time. It does
so to get data about the load on CPUs, so that freq can be
On 12 February 2014 20:36, Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
The change I'm applying is strongly inspired from the above. Can I use your
Signed-off-by?
Sure :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:21:16PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Sorry was away for short vacation.
>
> On 28 January 2014 19:20, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:50:40PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> Wait, I got the wrong code here. That's wasn't my initial intention.
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 12:21:16PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Sorry was away for short vacation.
On 28 January 2014 19:20, Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:50:40PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Wait, I got the wrong code here. That's wasn't my initial
On 29 January 2014 10:57, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> How about simplifying this design by doing the below?
>
> 1. Since anyway cpufreq governors monitor load on the cpu once every
> 5ms, *tie it with tick_sched_timer*, which also gets deferred when the cpu
> enters nohz_idle.
Its configurable. We
On 29 January 2014 10:57, Preeti Murthy preeti.l...@gmail.com wrote:
How about simplifying this design by doing the below?
1. Since anyway cpufreq governors monitor load on the cpu once every
5ms, *tie it with tick_sched_timer*, which also gets deferred when the cpu
enters nohz_idle.
Its
Sorry was away for short vacation.
On 28 January 2014 19:20, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:50:40PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Wait, I got the wrong code here. That's wasn't my initial intention.
>> I actually wanted to write something like this:
>>
>> -
Hi Frederic,
On 01/31/2014 10:00 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:57:59AM +0530, Preeti Murthy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Viresh Kumar
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> So the first question is why cpufreq needs it and is it really stupid?
Hi Frederic,
On 01/31/2014 10:00 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:57:59AM +0530, Preeti Murthy wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote:
Hi Guys,
So the first question is why cpufreq needs it and is it really
Sorry was away for short vacation.
On 28 January 2014 19:20, Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:50:40PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Wait, I got the wrong code here. That's wasn't my initial intention.
I actually wanted to write something like this:
-
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:57:59AM +0530, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Viresh Kumar
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > So the first question is why cpufreq needs it and is it really stupid?
> > Yes, it is stupid but that's how its implemented since a long time.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:57:59AM +0530, Preeti Murthy wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
wrote:
Hi Guys,
So the first question is why cpufreq needs it and is it really stupid?
Yes, it is stupid but that's how its implemented since a
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> So the first question is why cpufreq needs it and is it really stupid?
> Yes, it is stupid but that's how its implemented since a long time. It does
> so to get data about the load on CPUs, so that freq can be scaled
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:50:40PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 23 January 2014 19:05, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:22:32AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> I think below diff might get this fixed for you, though I am not sure if it
> >> breaks something else.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:50:40PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 23 January 2014 19:05, Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:22:32AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
I think below diff might get this fixed for you, though I am not sure if it
breaks something
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Guys,
So the first question is why cpufreq needs it and is it really stupid?
Yes, it is stupid but that's how its implemented since a long time. It does
so to get data about the load on CPUs, so that freq
On 23 January 2014 19:05, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:22:32AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> I think below diff might get this fixed for you, though I am not sure if it
>> breaks something else. Probably Thomas/Frederic can answer here.
>> If this looks fine I will send
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:22:32AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> I think below diff might get this fixed for you, though I am not sure if it
> breaks something else. Probably Thomas/Frederic can answer here.
> If this looks fine I will send it formally again:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/timer.c
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:22:32AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
I think below diff might get this fixed for you, though I am not sure if it
breaks something else. Probably Thomas/Frederic can answer here.
If this looks fine I will send it formally again:
diff --git a/kernel/timer.c
On 23 January 2014 19:05, Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:22:32AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
I think below diff might get this fixed for you, though I am not sure if it
breaks something else. Probably Thomas/Frederic can answer here.
If this looks fine
On 23 January 2014 11:11, Lei Wen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Lei Wen wrote:
>>> Recently I want to do the experiment for cpu isolation over 3.10 kernel.
>>> But I find the isolated one is periodically waken up by IPI interrupt.
>>>
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Lei Wen wrote:
>> Recently I want to do the experiment for cpu isolation over 3.10 kernel.
>> But I find the isolated one is periodically waken up by IPI interrupt.
>>
>> By checking the trace, I find those IPI is
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Lei Wen wrote:
> Recently I want to do the experiment for cpu isolation over 3.10 kernel.
> But I find the isolated one is periodically waken up by IPI interrupt.
>
> By checking the trace, I find those IPI is generated by add_timer_on,
> which would calls wake_up_nohz_cpu,
Hi Thomas,
Recently I want to do the experiment for cpu isolation over 3.10 kernel.
But I find the isolated one is periodically waken up by IPI interrupt.
By checking the trace, I find those IPI is generated by add_timer_on,
which would calls wake_up_nohz_cpu, and wake up the already idle cpu.
Hi Thomas,
Recently I want to do the experiment for cpu isolation over 3.10 kernel.
But I find the isolated one is periodically waken up by IPI interrupt.
By checking the trace, I find those IPI is generated by add_timer_on,
which would calls wake_up_nohz_cpu, and wake up the already idle cpu.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Lei Wen wrote:
Recently I want to do the experiment for cpu isolation over 3.10 kernel.
But I find the isolated one is periodically waken up by IPI interrupt.
By checking the trace, I find those IPI is generated by add_timer_on,
which would calls wake_up_nohz_cpu, and
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Lei Wen wrote:
Recently I want to do the experiment for cpu isolation over 3.10 kernel.
But I find the isolated one is periodically waken up by IPI interrupt.
By checking the trace, I find those
On 23 January 2014 11:11, Lei Wen adrian.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Lei Wen wrote:
Recently I want to do the experiment for cpu isolation over 3.10 kernel.
But I find the isolated one is periodically
30 matches
Mail list logo
