On Monday, February 20, 2017 02:49:18 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2017 03:28:03 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 17-02-17, 13:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 01:36:05 PM
On Monday, February 20, 2017 02:49:18 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2017 03:28:03 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 17-02-17, 13:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 01:36:05 PM
On Monday, February 20, 2017 03:28:03 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-02-17, 13:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 01:36:05 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:42:10PM +0530,
On Monday, February 20, 2017 03:28:03 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-02-17, 13:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 01:36:05 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:42:10PM +0530,
On 17-02-17, 13:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 01:36:05 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:42:10PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > But when I discussed this with Vincent, he
On 17-02-17, 13:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 01:36:05 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:42:10PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > But when I discussed this with Vincent, he
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 01:36:05 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:42:10PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > But when I discussed this with Vincent, he suggested that it may not be
> > > required
> >
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 01:36:05 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:42:10PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > But when I discussed this with Vincent, he suggested that it may not be
> > > required
> >
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 01:36:05 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:42:10PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > But when I discussed this with Vincent, he suggested that it may not be
> > required
> > at all as the scheduler (with the helped of "decayed") doesn't call into
>
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 01:36:05 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:42:10PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > But when I discussed this with Vincent, he suggested that it may not be
> > required
> > at all as the scheduler (with the helped of "decayed") doesn't call into
>
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:42:10PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> But when I discussed this with Vincent, he suggested that it may not be
> required
> at all as the scheduler (with the helped of "decayed") doesn't call into
> schedutil too often, i.e. at least 1 ms. And if the CPUs are stable
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:42:10PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> But when I discussed this with Vincent, he suggested that it may not be
> required
> at all as the scheduler (with the helped of "decayed") doesn't call into
> schedutil too often, i.e. at least 1 ms. And if the CPUs are stable
On 16-02-17, 01:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> More precisely, while the governor computations are less costly than updating
> the CPU state, they are not zero-cost, so do we really want to run them on
> every governor callback invocation until the CPU state is updated?
>
> We may end up running
On 16-02-17, 01:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> More precisely, while the governor computations are less costly than updating
> the CPU state, they are not zero-cost, so do we really want to run them on
> every governor callback invocation until the CPU state is updated?
>
> We may end up running
On 15-02-17, 23:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:45:47 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> First of all, [RFC] pretty please on things like this.
Sure.
> > Normally, the time it takes to reevaluate the frequency is negligible
> > compared to the time it takes to change
On 15-02-17, 23:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:45:47 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> First of all, [RFC] pretty please on things like this.
Sure.
> > Normally, the time it takes to reevaluate the frequency is negligible
> > compared to the time it takes to change
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:52:49 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:35:29 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:45:47 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >
> > First of all, [RFC] pretty please on things like this.
> >
> > > For an ideal
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:52:49 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:35:29 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:45:47 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >
> > First of all, [RFC] pretty please on things like this.
> >
> > > For an ideal
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:35:29 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:45:47 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> First of all, [RFC] pretty please on things like this.
>
> > For an ideal system (where frequency change doesn't incur any penalty)
> > we would like to
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:35:29 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:45:47 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> First of all, [RFC] pretty please on things like this.
>
> > For an ideal system (where frequency change doesn't incur any penalty)
> > we would like to
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:45:47 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
First of all, [RFC] pretty please on things like this.
> For an ideal system (where frequency change doesn't incur any penalty)
> we would like to change the frequency as soon as the load changes for a
> CPU. But the systems we have
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:45:47 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
First of all, [RFC] pretty please on things like this.
> For an ideal system (where frequency change doesn't incur any penalty)
> we would like to change the frequency as soon as the load changes for a
> CPU. But the systems we have
22 matches
Mail list logo