On Fri, 2017-12-15 at 21:23 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> Point: if you think it's OK to serialize these firefox threads, would
> you still think so if those were kernel threads instead? Serializing
> your kernel is a clear fail, but unpinned kthreads can be stacked up
> just as effectively as
On Fri, 2017-12-15 at 16:13 +, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 13-Dec 18:56, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 17:10 +, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > This is a respin of:
> > >https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/9/546
> > > which has been rebased on v4.15-rc2 to have ut
Hi Mike,
On 13-Dec 18:56, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 17:10 +, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > This is a respin of:
> >https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/9/546
> > which has been rebased on v4.15-rc2 to have util_est now working on top
> > of the recent PeterZ's:
> >[PATCH -v2
On Tue, 2017-12-05 at 17:10 +, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> This is a respin of:
>https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/9/546
> which has been rebased on v4.15-rc2 to have util_est now working on top
> of the recent PeterZ's:
>[PATCH -v2 00/18] sched/fair: A bit of a cgroup/PELT overhaul
>
> The a
On 13-Dec 17:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:10:14PM +, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > With this feature enabled, the measured overhead is in the range of ~1%
> > on the same HW/SW test configuration.
>
> That's quite a lot; did you look where that comes from?
I've tracked
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:10:14PM +, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> With this feature enabled, the measured overhead is in the range of ~1%
> on the same HW/SW test configuration.
That's quite a lot; did you look where that comes from?
6 matches
Mail list logo
