* Benjamin Herrenschmidt [2015-05-30 20:38:22]:
> On Sat, 2015-05-30 at 11:31 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> > In shared lpar case, spinning in guest context may potentially take
> > away cycles from other lpars waiting to run on the same physical cpu.
> >
> > So the policy in shared lp
On Sat, 2015-05-30 at 11:31 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> In shared lpar case, spinning in guest context may potentially take
> away cycles from other lpars waiting to run on the same physical cpu.
>
> So the policy in shared lpar case is to let PowerVM hypervisor know
> immediately that
On 05/30/2015 11:31 AM, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> * Preeti U Murthy [2015-05-29 19:17:17]:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> + if (max_idle_state > 1) {
>>> + snooze_timeout_en = true;
>>> + snooze_timeout = cpuidle_state_table[1].target_residency *
>>> +t
* Preeti U Murthy [2015-05-29 19:17:17]:
[snip]
> > + if (max_idle_state > 1) {
> > + snooze_timeout_en = true;
> > + snooze_timeout = cpuidle_state_table[1].target_residency *
> > +tb_ticks_per_usec;
> > + }
>
> Any idea why we don't have sno
Hi Shilpa,
The subject does not convey the purpose of this patch clearly IMO.
I would definitely suggest changing the subject to something like
"Auto promotion of snooze to deeper idle state" or similar.
On 05/29/2015 06:02 PM, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote:
> The idle cpus which stay in snooze for a lo
5 matches
Mail list logo
