On 9 April 2013 13:18, Paul Sokolovsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, I'm just trying to brainstorm how we can make CBuild/LAVA > actually useful, not something which takes 10hrs just to finish with > failure in >50% of cases. So, just common sense: benchmarking will > still be affected, but at least builds won't be. Also, a gcc build takes > ~10hrs, so there's much more chance for it to go into thermal issues > than for a benchmark (don't remember exactly, but should be just > 1-2hrs). It sounds like something that should be solved in system software - do you happen to know which cpufreq governor is being used? I know the Panda ES seemed to be having problems with the ondemand governor. We could try switching to the userspace cpufreq governor and underclocking a bit (not very scientific) to see if that helps: http://processors.wiki.ti.com/index.php/OMAP-L1_Linux_Drivers_Usage#Power_Management I guess we wouldn't want to do any frequency scaling for benchmarks but that doesn't seem to be an issue. -- Will Newton Toolchain Working Group, Linaro _______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
