On ti, 2016-09-13 at 08:38 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:57:54PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 21:04 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:47:57PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > > Even in an otherwise quiescent system there may be
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:57:54PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 21:04 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:47:57PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > Even in an otherwise quiescent system there may be user/kernel
> > > threads
> > > independent of the test that
On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 21:04 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:47:57PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > Even in an otherwise quiescent system there may be user/kernel
> > threads
> > independent of the test that add enough latency to make timing
> > sensitive
> > subtests fail.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:47:57PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> Even in an otherwise quiescent system there may be user/kernel threads
> independent of the test that add enough latency to make timing sensitive
> subtests fail. Boost the priority of such subtests to avoid these
> failures.
>
> This
