On 20 November 2012 15:28, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 01:51:00PM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 9 November 2012 18:13, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>> > Hi Vincent,
>> >
>> > I have experienced suboptimal buddy selection on a dual cluster setup
>> > (ARM
Hi Vincent,
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 01:51:00PM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 9 November 2012 18:13, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> > I have experienced suboptimal buddy selection on a dual cluster setup
> > (ARM TC2) if SD_SHARE_POWERLINE is enabled at MC level and disabled
Hi Vincent,
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 01:51:00PM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 9 November 2012 18:13, Morten Rasmussen morten.rasmus...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
I have experienced suboptimal buddy selection on a dual cluster setup
(ARM TC2) if SD_SHARE_POWERLINE is enabled at MC level
On 20 November 2012 15:28, Morten Rasmussen morten.rasmus...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 01:51:00PM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 9 November 2012 18:13, Morten Rasmussen morten.rasmus...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
I have experienced suboptimal buddy selection on
On 9 November 2012 18:13, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> I have experienced suboptimal buddy selection on a dual cluster setup
> (ARM TC2) if SD_SHARE_POWERLINE is enabled at MC level and disabled at
> CPU level. This seems to be the correct flag settings for a system with
> only
On 9 November 2012 17:46, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 10:53:47AM +, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Monday 29 October 2012 06:42 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > On 24 October 2012 17:20, Santosh Shilimkar
>> > wrote:
>> >> Vincent,
>> >>
>> >> Few comments/questions.
>>
On 2 November 2012 11:53, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Monday 29 October 2012 06:42 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>
>> On 24 October 2012 17:20, Santosh Shilimkar
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Vincent,
>>>
>>> Few comments/questions.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 2 November 2012 11:53, Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
On Monday 29 October 2012 06:42 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 24 October 2012 17:20, Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com
wrote:
Vincent,
Few comments/questions.
On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent
On 9 November 2012 17:46, Morten Rasmussen morten.rasmus...@arm.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 10:53:47AM +, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Monday 29 October 2012 06:42 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 24 October 2012 17:20, Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com
wrote:
Vincent,
On 9 November 2012 18:13, Morten Rasmussen morten.rasmus...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
I have experienced suboptimal buddy selection on a dual cluster setup
(ARM TC2) if SD_SHARE_POWERLINE is enabled at MC level and disabled at
CPU level. This seems to be the correct flag settings for a
Hi Vincent,
I have experienced suboptimal buddy selection on a dual cluster setup
(ARM TC2) if SD_SHARE_POWERLINE is enabled at MC level and disabled at
CPU level. This seems to be the correct flag settings for a system with
only cluster level power gating.
To me it looks like
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 10:53:47AM +, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Monday 29 October 2012 06:42 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 24 October 2012 17:20, Santosh Shilimkar
> > wrote:
> >> Vincent,
> >>
> >> Few comments/questions.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 10:53:47AM +, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Monday 29 October 2012 06:42 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 24 October 2012 17:20, Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com
wrote:
Vincent,
Few comments/questions.
On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent
Hi Vincent,
I have experienced suboptimal buddy selection on a dual cluster setup
(ARM TC2) if SD_SHARE_POWERLINE is enabled at MC level and disabled at
CPU level. This seems to be the correct flag settings for a system with
only cluster level power gating.
To me it looks like
On Monday 29 October 2012 06:42 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 24 October 2012 17:20, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
Vincent,
Few comments/questions.
On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
During sched_domain creation, we define a pack buddy CPU if available.
On a system
On Monday 29 October 2012 06:42 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 24 October 2012 17:20, Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
Vincent,
Few comments/questions.
On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
During sched_domain creation, we define a pack buddy CPU if
On 24 October 2012 17:20, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> Vincent,
>
> Few comments/questions.
>
>
> On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>
>> During sched_domain creation, we define a pack buddy CPU if available.
>>
>> On a system that share the powerline at all level, the
On 24 October 2012 17:20, Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilim...@ti.com wrote:
Vincent,
Few comments/questions.
On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
During sched_domain creation, we define a pack buddy CPU if available.
On a system that share the powerline at all
Vincent,
Few comments/questions.
On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
During sched_domain creation, we define a pack buddy CPU if available.
On a system that share the powerline at all level, the buddy is set to -1
On a dual clusters / dual cores system which can
Vincent,
Few comments/questions.
On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
During sched_domain creation, we define a pack buddy CPU if available.
On a system that share the powerline at all level, the buddy is set to -1
On a dual clusters / dual cores system which can
20 matches
Mail list logo
