On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 12:26 -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 05:35:50PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> >
> > Did you see any performance regression on Android workloads?
>
> I did a few AnTuTU runs and did not observe a regression.
Thanks.
-Srinivas
> thanks,
> Steve
On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 12:26 -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 05:35:50PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> >
> > Did you see any performance regression on Android workloads?
>
> I did a few AnTuTU runs and did not observe a regression.
Thanks.
-Srinivas
> thanks,
> Steve
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 05:35:50PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> Did you see any performance regression on Android workloads?
I did a few AnTuTU runs and did not observe a regression.
thanks,
Steve
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 05:35:50PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> Did you see any performance regression on Android workloads?
I did a few AnTuTU runs and did not observe a regression.
thanks,
Steve
On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 17:02 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, September 08, 2016 03:15:49 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:49:31 PM Srinivas Pandruvada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 02:44 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 17:02 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, September 08, 2016 03:15:49 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:49:31 PM Srinivas Pandruvada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 02:44 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > >
On Thursday, September 08, 2016 03:15:49 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:49:31 PM Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 02:44 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:35:50 PM Srinivas Pandruvada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
On Thursday, September 08, 2016 03:15:49 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:49:31 PM Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 02:44 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:35:50 PM Srinivas Pandruvada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:49:31 PM Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 02:44 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:35:50 PM Srinivas Pandruvada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 17:22 -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:49:31 PM Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 02:44 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:35:50 PM Srinivas Pandruvada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 17:22 -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 02:44 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:35:50 PM Srinivas Pandruvada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 17:22 -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 02:44 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:35:50 PM Srinivas Pandruvada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 17:22 -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:35:50 PM Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 17:22 -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > Please let me know what you think and if you can run some
> > > benchmarks you
> > >
On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:35:50 PM Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 17:22 -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > Please let me know what you think and if you can run some
> > > benchmarks you
> > >
On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 17:22 -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Please let me know what you think and if you can run some
> > benchmarks you
> > care about and see if the changes make any difference (this way or
> > another),
> >
On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 17:22 -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Please let me know what you think and if you can run some
> > benchmarks you
> > care about and see if the changes make any difference (this way or
> > another),
> >
On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:22:26 PM Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Please let me know what you think and if you can run some benchmarks you
> > care about and see if the changes make any difference (this way or another),
> >
On Wednesday, September 07, 2016 05:22:26 PM Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Please let me know what you think and if you can run some benchmarks you
> > care about and see if the changes make any difference (this way or another),
> >
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Please let me know what you think and if you can run some benchmarks you
> care about and see if the changes make any difference (this way or another),
> please do that and let me know what you've found.
LGTM (I just reviewed
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 02:56:48AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Please let me know what you think and if you can run some benchmarks you
> care about and see if the changes make any difference (this way or another),
> please do that and let me know what you've found.
LGTM (I just reviewed
On 2016.09.04 16:55 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, September 04, 2016 08:54:49 AM Doug Smythies wrote:
>> On 2016.09.02 17:57 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>>> This is a new version of the "iowait boost" series I posted a few weeks
>>> ago. Since the first two patches from that series have
On 2016.09.04 16:55 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, September 04, 2016 08:54:49 AM Doug Smythies wrote:
>> On 2016.09.02 17:57 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>>> This is a new version of the "iowait boost" series I posted a few weeks
>>> ago. Since the first two patches from that series have
On Sunday, September 04, 2016 08:54:49 AM Doug Smythies wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On 2016.09.02 17:57 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > This is a new version of the "iowait boost" series I posted a few weeks
> > ago. Since the first two patches from that series have been reworked and
> > are in
On Sunday, September 04, 2016 08:54:49 AM Doug Smythies wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On 2016.09.02 17:57 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > This is a new version of the "iowait boost" series I posted a few weeks
> > ago. Since the first two patches from that series have been reworked and
> > are in
Hi Rafael,
On 2016.09.02 17:57 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This is a new version of the "iowait boost" series I posted a few weeks
> ago. Since the first two patches from that series have been reworked and
> are in linux-next now, I've rebased this series on top of my linux-next
> branch.
>
> In
Hi Rafael,
On 2016.09.02 17:57 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This is a new version of the "iowait boost" series I posted a few weeks
> ago. Since the first two patches from that series have been reworked and
> are in linux-next now, I've rebased this series on top of my linux-next
> branch.
>
> In
Hi Everyone,
This is a new version of the "iowait boost" series I posted a few weeks
ago. Since the first two patches from that series have been reworked and
are in linux-next now, I've rebased this series on top of my linux-next
branch.
In addition to that I took the Doug's feedback into
Hi Everyone,
This is a new version of the "iowait boost" series I posted a few weeks
ago. Since the first two patches from that series have been reworked and
are in linux-next now, I've rebased this series on top of my linux-next
branch.
In addition to that I took the Doug's feedback into
28 matches
Mail list logo
