On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:26:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Russell reported, that irqtime_account_idle_ticks() takes ages due to:
>
>for (i = 0; i < ticks; i++)
>irqtime_account_process_tick(current, 0, rq);
>
> It's sad, that this code was written way _AFTER_ the
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:26:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Russell reported, that irqtime_account_idle_ticks() takes ages due to:
for (i = 0; i ticks; i++)
irqtime_account_process_tick(current, 0, rq);
It's sad, that this code was written way _AFTER_ the NOHZ
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:26:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Russell reported, that irqtime_account_idle_ticks() takes ages due to:
>
>for (i = 0; i < ticks; i++)
>irqtime_account_process_tick(current, 0, rq);
>
> It's sad, that this code was written way _AFTER_ the
Russell reported, that irqtime_account_idle_ticks() takes ages due to:
for (i = 0; i < ticks; i++)
irqtime_account_process_tick(current, 0, rq);
It's sad, that this code was written way _AFTER_ the NOHZ idle
functionality was available. I charge myself guitly for not paying
Russell reported, that irqtime_account_idle_ticks() takes ages due to:
for (i = 0; i ticks; i++)
irqtime_account_process_tick(current, 0, rq);
It's sad, that this code was written way _AFTER_ the NOHZ idle
functionality was available. I charge myself guitly for not paying
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 11:26:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Russell reported, that irqtime_account_idle_ticks() takes ages due to:
for (i = 0; i ticks; i++)
irqtime_account_process_tick(current, 0, rq);
It's sad, that this code was written way _AFTER_ the NOHZ
6 matches
Mail list logo