On 11/07/2014 05:29 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 11/06/2014 07:12 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Preeti,
I am wondering if we aren't going to a false debate.
If the latency_req is 0, we should just poll and not enter in any idle
state even if one has zero exit latency. With a zero latency req,
On 11/07/2014 05:29 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 11/06/2014 07:12 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Preeti,
I am wondering if we aren't going to a false debate.
If the latency_req is 0, we should just poll and not enter in any idle
state even if one has zero exit latency. With a zero latency req,
On 11/06/2014 07:12 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> Preeti,
>
> I am wondering if we aren't going to a false debate.
>
> If the latency_req is 0, we should just poll and not enter in any idle
> state even if one has zero exit latency. With a zero latency req, we
> want full reactivity on the
On 11/06/2014 05:57 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 11/06/2014 05:08 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> On 11/05/2014 07:58 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2014 03:01 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:29 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 10/28/2014 04:51 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
Preeti,
I am wondering if we aren't going to a false debate.
If the latency_req is 0, we should just poll and not enter in any idle
state even if one has zero exit latency. With a zero latency req, we
want full reactivity on the system, not enter an idle state with all the
computation in
On 11/06/2014 05:08 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 11/05/2014 07:58 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 10/29/2014 03:01 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:29 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 10/28/2014 04:51 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano
On 11/06/2014 05:57 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 11/06/2014 05:08 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 11/05/2014 07:58 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 10/29/2014 03:01 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:29 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 10/28/2014 04:51 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On
On 11/06/2014 07:12 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Preeti,
I am wondering if we aren't going to a false debate.
If the latency_req is 0, we should just poll and not enter in any idle
state even if one has zero exit latency. With a zero latency req, we
want full reactivity on the system, not
On 11/06/2014 05:08 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 11/05/2014 07:58 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 10/29/2014 03:01 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:29 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 10/28/2014 04:51 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano
Preeti,
I am wondering if we aren't going to a false debate.
If the latency_req is 0, we should just poll and not enter in any idle
state even if one has zero exit latency. With a zero latency req, we
want full reactivity on the system, not enter an idle state with all the
computation in
On 11/05/2014 07:58 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 10/29/2014 03:01 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> On 10/29/2014 12:29 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2014 04:51 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano
wrote:
> When the
On 11/05/2014 10:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:01:17 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means "poll in all the
cases".
That is correctly implemented on x86 but not on the other archs.
As how is written the code,
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:01:17 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means "poll in all the
> cases".
>
> That is correctly implemented on x86 but not on the other archs.
>
> As how is written the code, if the latency request is zero, the
On 10/29/2014 03:01 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:29 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 10/28/2014 04:51 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano
wrote:
When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means "poll in
all the
cases".
On 10/29/2014 03:01 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:29 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 10/28/2014 04:51 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:01:17 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means poll in all the
cases.
That is correctly implemented on x86 but not on the other archs.
As how is written the code, if the latency request is zero, the governor will
On 11/05/2014 10:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:01:17 AM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means poll in all the
cases.
That is correctly implemented on x86 but not on the other archs.
As how is written the code, if
On 11/05/2014 07:58 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 10/29/2014 03:01 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 10/29/2014 12:29 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 10/28/2014 04:51 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
When the pmqos
On 10/29/2014 12:29 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 10/28/2014 04:51 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano
>> wrote:
>>> When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means "poll in
>>> all the
>>> cases".
>>>
>>> That is correctly
On 10/28/2014 04:51 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano
wrote:
When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means "poll in all the
cases".
That is correctly implemented on x86 but not on the other archs.
As how is written the code,
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano
wrote:
> When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means "poll in all the
> cases".
>
> That is correctly implemented on x86 but not on the other archs.
>
> As how is written the code, if the latency request is zero, the
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means poll in all the
cases.
That is correctly implemented on x86 but not on the other archs.
As how is written the code, if the latency request
On 10/28/2014 04:51 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means poll in all the
cases.
That is correctly implemented on x86 but not on the other archs.
As how
On 10/29/2014 12:29 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 10/28/2014 04:51 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano
daniel.lezc...@linaro.org wrote:
When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means poll in
all the
cases.
That is correctly
When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means "poll in all the
cases".
That is correctly implemented on x86 but not on the other archs.
As how is written the code, if the latency request is zero, the governor will
return zero, so corresponding, for x86, to the poll function, but
When the pmqos latency requirement is set to zero that means poll in all the
cases.
That is correctly implemented on x86 but not on the other archs.
As how is written the code, if the latency request is zero, the governor will
return zero, so corresponding, for x86, to the poll function, but for
26 matches
Mail list logo
