Hello,
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:17:42AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> What are selection criteria when choosing between system_wq or
> system_power_efficient_wq on drivers ? IOW if I would be writing
> a new driver which workqueue should I use and when ?
Yeah, it's a bit ad-hoc at the
Hi
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 04:35:31AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:21:24AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > I'm not sure if this is part of a larger patchset actually adding that
> > "system_power_efficient_wq", but maybe it'd be better to expose a
> > function as an API
Hi
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 04:35:31AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:21:24AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
I'm not sure if this is part of a larger patchset actually adding that
system_power_efficient_wq, but maybe it'd be better to expose a
function as an API rather than
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:17:42AM +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
What are selection criteria when choosing between system_wq or
system_power_efficient_wq on drivers ? IOW if I would be writing
a new driver which workqueue should I use and when ?
Yeah, it's a bit ad-hoc at the moment.
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 15:08 -0800, Zoran Markovic wrote:
> From: Shaibal Dutta
>
> For better use of CPU idle time, allow the scheduler to select the CPU
> on which the timeout work of regulatory settings would be executed.
> This extends CPU idle residency time and saves power.
>
> This
On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 04:35 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:21:24AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > I'm not sure if this is part of a larger patchset actually adding that
> > "system_power_efficient_wq", but maybe it'd be better to expose a
> > function as an API
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:21:24AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is part of a larger patchset actually adding that
> "system_power_efficient_wq", but maybe it'd be better to expose a
> function as an API rather than the wq struct?
>
> Something like
>
>
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 15:08 -0800, Zoran Markovic wrote:
> From: Shaibal Dutta
>
> For better use of CPU idle time, allow the scheduler to select the CPU
> on which the timeout work of regulatory settings would be executed.
> This extends CPU idle residency time and saves power.
>
> This
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 15:08 -0800, Zoran Markovic wrote:
From: Shaibal Dutta shaibal.du...@broadcom.com
For better use of CPU idle time, allow the scheduler to select the CPU
on which the timeout work of regulatory settings would be executed.
This extends CPU idle residency time and saves
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:21:24AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
I'm not sure if this is part of a larger patchset actually adding that
system_power_efficient_wq, but maybe it'd be better to expose a
function as an API rather than the wq struct?
Something like
On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 04:35 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:21:24AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
I'm not sure if this is part of a larger patchset actually adding that
system_power_efficient_wq, but maybe it'd be better to expose a
function as an API rather than
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 15:08 -0800, Zoran Markovic wrote:
From: Shaibal Dutta shaibal.du...@broadcom.com
For better use of CPU idle time, allow the scheduler to select the CPU
on which the timeout work of regulatory settings would be executed.
This extends CPU idle residency time and saves
From: Shaibal Dutta
For better use of CPU idle time, allow the scheduler to select the CPU
on which the timeout work of regulatory settings would be executed.
This extends CPU idle residency time and saves power.
This functionality is enabled when CONFIG_WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT is selected.
Cc:
From: Shaibal Dutta shaibal.du...@broadcom.com
For better use of CPU idle time, allow the scheduler to select the CPU
on which the timeout work of regulatory settings would be executed.
This extends CPU idle residency time and saves power.
This functionality is enabled when
14 matches
Mail list logo
