FYI I'm currently out of the country in New Zealand and won't be able
to take a proper look at this until the beginning of March.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> Since the simplification of fork/exec/wake balancing has much arguments,
> I removed that part in the patch set.
>
FYI I'm currently out of the country in New Zealand and won't be able
to take a proper look at this until the beginning of March.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
Since the simplification of fork/exec/wake balancing has much arguments,
I removed that part in
On 02/18/2013 01:07 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> Since the simplification of fork/exec/wake balancing has much arguments,
> I removed that part in the patch set.
>
> This patch set implement/consummate the rough power aware scheduling
> proposal: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/13/139.
Just review the
Since the simplification of fork/exec/wake balancing has much arguments,
I removed that part in the patch set.
This patch set implement/consummate the rough power aware scheduling
proposal: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/13/139.
It defines 2 new power aware policy 'balance' and 'powersaving', then
Since the simplification of fork/exec/wake balancing has much arguments,
I removed that part in the patch set.
This patch set implement/consummate the rough power aware scheduling
proposal: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/13/139.
It defines 2 new power aware policy 'balance' and 'powersaving', then
On 02/18/2013 01:07 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
Since the simplification of fork/exec/wake balancing has much arguments,
I removed that part in the patch set.
This patch set implement/consummate the rough power aware scheduling
proposal: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/13/139.
Just review the great
6 matches
Mail list logo
