On Thursday, July 04, 2013 10:36:53 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Lukasz,
>
> Sorry for being late. Actually I didn't had an answer to your mail
> and wanted to go through it with some fresh mind. This is my
> first mail this morning, lets see if I can bring something good
> into the discussion.
>
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 11:58:53 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 4 July 2013 11:13, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > This is a possible solution, but I've already modified thermal code
> > a bit and found a solution for the problem.
> >
> > I use thermal workqueue (which is already in place anyway) to
> >
On 4 July 2013 11:13, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> This is a possible solution, but I've already modified thermal code a
> bit and found a solution for the problem.
>
> I use thermal workqueue (which is already in place anyway) to enable the
> boost again.
> Due to that I can provide behaviour
On 4 July 2013 11:13, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
This is a possible solution, but I've already modified thermal code a
bit and found a solution for the problem.
I use thermal workqueue (which is already in place anyway) to enable the
boost again.
Due to that I can provide
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 11:58:53 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 4 July 2013 11:13, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
This is a possible solution, but I've already modified thermal code
a bit and found a solution for the problem.
I use thermal workqueue (which is already in place
On Thursday, July 04, 2013 10:36:53 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Lukasz,
Sorry for being late. Actually I didn't had an answer to your mail
and wanted to go through it with some fresh mind. This is my
first mail this morning, lets see if I can bring something good
into the discussion.
On 1
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:36:53 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Lukasz,
>
> Sorry for being late. Actually I didn't had an answer to your mail
> and wanted to go through it with some fresh mind. This is my
> first mail this morning, lets see if I can bring something good
> into the discussion.
>
>
Hi Lukasz,
Sorry for being late. Actually I didn't had an answer to your mail
and wanted to go through it with some fresh mind. This is my
first mail this morning, lets see if I can bring something good
into the discussion.
On 1 July 2013 13:45, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Does anybody have any
Hi Lukasz,
Sorry for being late. Actually I didn't had an answer to your mail
and wanted to go through it with some fresh mind. This is my
first mail this morning, lets see if I can bring something good
into the discussion.
On 1 July 2013 13:45, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:36:53 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Lukasz,
Sorry for being late. Actually I didn't had an answer to your mail
and wanted to go through it with some fresh mind. This is my
first mail this morning, lets see if I can bring something good
into the discussion.
On 1
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:54:57 +0200, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > > So thermal or "other solution" [*] shall disable boost when
> > > overheated and enable it back when things cool down.
> >
> > yeah..
>
> For me thermal is a good candidate to enable boost again. I only need
> to find a proper
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 08:54:57 +0200, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
So thermal or other solution [*] shall disable boost when
overheated and enable it back when things cool down.
yeah..
For me thermal is a good candidate to enable boost again. I only need
to find a proper place for it.
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:20:40 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 27 June 2013 20:12, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:46:44 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> @Rafael: We need you to jump into this discussion now, I don't
> >> have a good idea about what we should do :)
> >>
> >> On 27
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:20:40 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 27 June 2013 20:12, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:46:44 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
@Rafael: We need you to jump into this discussion now, I don't
have a good idea about what we should do :)
On 27 June 2013 20:12, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:46:44 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> @Rafael: We need you to jump into this discussion now, I don't
>> have a good idea about what we should do :)
>>
>> On 27 June 2013 16:28, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>> > Do you have any idea
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:46:44 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> @Rafael: We need you to jump into this discussion now, I don't
> have a good idea about what we should do :)
>
> On 27 June 2013 16:28, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > Do you have any idea of how to precisely set the load threshold?
>
> I
@Rafael: We need you to jump into this discussion now, I don't
have a good idea about what we should do :)
On 27 June 2013 16:28, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Do you have any idea of how to precisely set the load threshold?
I thought we are talking about cpu being in idle state.
> As a side note:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:06:43 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 19 June 2013 22:42, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > In the core governor code, per cpu load value is calculated. This
> > patch uses it to mark processor as a "busy" one, when load value is
> > higher than 90%.
>
> How can we take this
On 19 June 2013 22:42, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> In the core governor code, per cpu load value is calculated. This patch
> uses it to mark processor as a "busy" one, when load value is higher than
> 90%.
How can we take this assumption. What about a cpu which is only 70-80%
busy? So, we would be
On 19 June 2013 22:42, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
In the core governor code, per cpu load value is calculated. This patch
uses it to mark processor as a busy one, when load value is higher than
90%.
How can we take this assumption. What about a cpu which is only 70-80%
busy?
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:06:43 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 19 June 2013 22:42, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
In the core governor code, per cpu load value is calculated. This
patch uses it to mark processor as a busy one, when load value is
higher than 90%.
How can we
@Rafael: We need you to jump into this discussion now, I don't
have a good idea about what we should do :)
On 27 June 2013 16:28, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
Do you have any idea of how to precisely set the load threshold?
I thought we are talking about cpu being in idle
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:46:44 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
@Rafael: We need you to jump into this discussion now, I don't
have a good idea about what we should do :)
On 27 June 2013 16:28, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
Do you have any idea of how to precisely set the load
On 27 June 2013 20:12, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:46:44 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
@Rafael: We need you to jump into this discussion now, I don't
have a good idea about what we should do :)
On 27 June 2013 16:28, Lukasz Majewski l.majew...@samsung.com
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:58:32 PM Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:01:07 -0700
> Dirk Brandewie wrote:
>
> > On 06/19/2013 10:12 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > > In the core governor code, per cpu load value is calculated. This
> > > patch uses it to mark processor as a
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:01:07 -0700
Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> On 06/19/2013 10:12 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > In the core governor code, per cpu load value is calculated. This
> > patch uses it to mark processor as a "busy" one, when load value is
> > higher than 90%.
> >
> > New cpufreq sysfs
On 06/19/2013 10:12 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
In the core governor code, per cpu load value is calculated. This patch
uses it to mark processor as a "busy" one, when load value is higher than
90%.
New cpufreq sysfs attribute is created (busy_cpus). It is read only
and provides information
In the core governor code, per cpu load value is calculated. This patch
uses it to mark processor as a "busy" one, when load value is higher than
90%.
New cpufreq sysfs attribute is created (busy_cpus). It is read only
and provides information about number of actually busy CPU.
Signed-off-by:
In the core governor code, per cpu load value is calculated. This patch
uses it to mark processor as a busy one, when load value is higher than
90%.
New cpufreq sysfs attribute is created (busy_cpus). It is read only
and provides information about number of actually busy CPU.
Signed-off-by:
On 06/19/2013 10:12 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
In the core governor code, per cpu load value is calculated. This patch
uses it to mark processor as a busy one, when load value is higher than
90%.
New cpufreq sysfs attribute is created (busy_cpus). It is read only
and provides information about
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:01:07 -0700
Dirk Brandewie dirk.brande...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/19/2013 10:12 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
In the core governor code, per cpu load value is calculated. This
patch uses it to mark processor as a busy one, when load value is
higher than 90%.
New
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:58:32 PM Lukasz Majewski wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:01:07 -0700
Dirk Brandewie dirk.brande...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/19/2013 10:12 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
In the core governor code, per cpu load value is calculated. This
patch uses it to mark
32 matches
Mail list logo
