On Thursday, May 29, 2014 07:27:34 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:59:45AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > [ +CC: Greg, Doug, Stratos, Yuyang ]
> >
> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:10:49AM -0700, Dirk
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 07:27:34PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:59:45AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > [ +CC: Greg, Doug, Stratos, Yuyang ]
> >
> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:10:49AM -0700, Dirk
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 07:27:34PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:59:45AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
[ +CC: Greg, Doug, Stratos, Yuyang ]
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:10:49AM -0700, Dirk Brandewie
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 07:27:34 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:59:45AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
[ +CC: Greg, Doug, Stratos, Yuyang ]
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:10:49AM -0700, Dirk Brandewie
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:59:45AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> [ +CC: Greg, Doug, Stratos, Yuyang ]
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:10:49AM -0700, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> > > On 05/06/2014 10:40 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 09:59:45AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
[ +CC: Greg, Doug, Stratos, Yuyang ]
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:10:49AM -0700, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
On 05/06/2014 10:40 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Cc'ing Dirk who
> That is not true. Yes, and due to the setpoint being less than
> 100, which is needed or the driver won't work at all, there is
> a tendency to drive the target pstate upwards.
> However that is tempered by both the PID proportional gain,
> and ultimately integer math. More importantly, the CPU
On 2014.05.27 01:40 Yuyang Du wrote:
>> On 2014.05.27 01:00, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> I tried applying your (rejected) patch "intel_pstate: Remove C0
>> tracking" posted here:
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/8/574
>>
>> to v3.14.4 and it fixes the problem as expected.
>>
>> So we have a
> I tried applying your (rejected) patch "intel_pstate: Remove C0
> tracking" posted here:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/8/574
>
> to v3.14.4 and it fixes the problem as expected.
>
> So we have a commit fcb6a15c2e7e ("intel_pstate: Take core C0 time into
> account for core busy
[ +CC: Greg, Doug, Stratos, Yuyang ]
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:10:49AM -0700, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> > On 05/06/2014 10:40 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > Cc'ing Dirk who is taking care of intel-pstate driver.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks
That is not true. Yes, and due to the setpoint being less than
100, which is needed or the driver won't work at all, there is
a tendency to drive the target pstate upwards.
However that is tempered by both the PID proportional gain,
and ultimately integer math. More importantly, the CPU
[ +CC: Greg, Doug, Stratos, Yuyang ]
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:10:49AM -0700, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
On 05/06/2014 10:40 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Cc'ing Dirk who is taking care of intel-pstate driver.
Thanks Viresh I had
I tried applying your (rejected) patch intel_pstate: Remove C0
tracking posted here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/8/574
to v3.14.4 and it fixes the problem as expected.
So we have a commit fcb6a15c2e7e (intel_pstate: Take core C0 time into
account for core busy calculation) that
On 2014.05.27 01:40 Yuyang Du wrote:
On 2014.05.27 01:00, Johan Hovold wrote:
I tried applying your (rejected) patch intel_pstate: Remove C0
tracking posted here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/8/574
to v3.14.4 and it fixes the problem as expected.
So we have a commit fcb6a15c2e7e
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:10:49AM -0700, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> On 05/06/2014 10:40 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Cc'ing Dirk who is taking care of intel-pstate driver.
> >
>
> Thanks Viresh I had seen this thread.
>
> I am looking into it
Any updates on this, Dirk? 3.14 is still basically
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:10:49AM -0700, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
On 05/06/2014 10:40 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Cc'ing Dirk who is taking care of intel-pstate driver.
Thanks Viresh I had seen this thread.
I am looking into it
Any updates on this, Dirk? 3.14 is still basically unusable with
On 05/06/2014 10:40 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Cc'ing Dirk who is taking care of intel-pstate driver.
Thanks Viresh I had seen this thread.
I am looking into it
--Dirk
On 6 May 2014 22:05, Johan Hovold wrote:
After updating my main system from v3.13 to v3.14.2, I found that the
git
Johan Hovold writes:
> So I guess that idle-active difference is normal for acpi-cpufreq and
> that the problem only arises in or with the intel_pstate driver.
I've also noticed some performance issues with intel_pstate in powersave
mode, in my case playing fullscreen video was very choppy.
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:10:34AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Cc'ing Dirk who is taking care of intel-pstate driver.
>
> On 6 May 2014 22:05, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > After updating my main system from v3.13 to v3.14.2, I found that the
> > git bash-completion was extremely sluggish. Completing
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:10:34AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Cc'ing Dirk who is taking care of intel-pstate driver.
On 6 May 2014 22:05, Johan Hovold jhov...@gmail.com wrote:
After updating my main system from v3.13 to v3.14.2, I found that the
git bash-completion was extremely sluggish.
Johan Hovold jhov...@gmail.com writes:
So I guess that idle-active difference is normal for acpi-cpufreq and
that the problem only arises in or with the intel_pstate driver.
I've also noticed some performance issues with intel_pstate in powersave
mode, in my case playing fullscreen video was
On 05/06/2014 10:40 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Cc'ing Dirk who is taking care of intel-pstate driver.
Thanks Viresh I had seen this thread.
I am looking into it
--Dirk
On 6 May 2014 22:05, Johan Hovold jhov...@gmail.com wrote:
After updating my main system from v3.13 to v3.14.2, I found that
Cc'ing Dirk who is taking care of intel-pstate driver.
On 6 May 2014 22:05, Johan Hovold wrote:
> After updating my main system from v3.13 to v3.14.2, I found that the
> git bash-completion was extremely sluggish. Completing a file name would
> take roughly six rather than one second on this
After updating my main system from v3.13 to v3.14.2, I found that the
git bash-completion was extremely sluggish. Completing a file name would
take roughly six rather than one second on this Haswell machine
(i7-4770). (Other things, such as git rebase, also felt slower, but
the completion issue
Cc'ing Dirk who is taking care of intel-pstate driver.
On 6 May 2014 22:05, Johan Hovold jhov...@gmail.com wrote:
After updating my main system from v3.13 to v3.14.2, I found that the
git bash-completion was extremely sluggish. Completing a file name would
take roughly six rather than one
After updating my main system from v3.13 to v3.14.2, I found that the
git bash-completion was extremely sluggish. Completing a file name would
take roughly six rather than one second on this Haswell machine
(i7-4770). (Other things, such as git rebase, also felt slower, but
the completion issue
26 matches
Mail list logo
