Paul,
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Paul Gortmaker
wrote:
> On 14-05-07 07:50 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> The loops_per_jiffy count continues to be updated as each CPU is
>> brought up. This causes problems when we've got an HMP system and
>> different CPUs have different loops per jiffy. On
Paul,
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Paul Gortmaker
paul.gortma...@windriver.com wrote:
On 14-05-07 07:50 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
The loops_per_jiffy count continues to be updated as each CPU is
brought up. This causes problems when we've got an HMP system and
different CPUs have different
On 14-05-07 07:50 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> The loops_per_jiffy count continues to be updated as each CPU is
> brought up. This causes problems when we've got an HMP system and
> different CPUs have different loops per jiffy. On exynos 542x
> systems, for instance, the A7s will have
On 14-05-07 07:50 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
The loops_per_jiffy count continues to be updated as each CPU is
brought up. This causes problems when we've got an HMP system and
different CPUs have different loops per jiffy. On exynos 542x
systems, for instance, the A7s will have significantly
The loops_per_jiffy count continues to be updated as each CPU is
brought up. This causes problems when we've got an HMP system and
different CPUs have different loops per jiffy. On exynos 542x
systems, for instance, the A7s will have significantly lower loops per
jiffy than their big brothers.
The loops_per_jiffy count continues to be updated as each CPU is
brought up. This causes problems when we've got an HMP system and
different CPUs have different loops per jiffy. On exynos 542x
systems, for instance, the A7s will have significantly lower loops per
jiffy than their big brothers.
6 matches
Mail list logo