On 16/03/17 09:58, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 16/03/17 12:27, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> >> On 16-Mar 11:16, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >> > On 15/03/17 16:40, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >> > >
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 16/03/17 12:27, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
>> On 16-Mar 11:16, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> > On 15/03/17 16:40, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> > > [..]
>> > > >
>> > > >> > However, trying to quickly
On 16/03/17 12:27, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 16-Mar 11:16, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 15/03/17 16:40, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > [..]
> > > >
> > > >> > However, trying to quickly summarize how that would work (for who is
> > > >> > already
On 16-Mar 11:16, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 15/03/17 16:40, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > [..]
> > >
> > >> > However, trying to quickly summarize how that would work (for who is
> > >> > already somewhat familiar with reclaiming bits):
> > >> >
> > >
On 15/03/17 16:40, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> [..]
> >
> >> > However, trying to quickly summarize how that would work (for who is
> >> > already somewhat familiar with reclaiming bits):
> >> >
> >> > - a task utilization contribution is accounted
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
[..]
>
>> > However, trying to quickly summarize how that would work (for who is
>> > already somewhat familiar with reclaiming bits):
>> >
>> > - a task utilization contribution is accounted for (at rq level) as
>> >soon as it wakes up for t
On 15/03/17 09:13, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi Joel,
> >
> > On 15/03/17 05:59, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Patrick Bellasi
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 13-Mar 03:08, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> >> >> Hi Patrick,
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> On 15/03/17 05:59, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Patrick Bellasi
>> wrote:
>> > On 13-Mar 03:08, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>> >> Hi Patrick,
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Patrick Bell
Hi Joel,
On 15/03/17 05:59, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Patrick Bellasi
> wrote:
> > On 13-Mar 03:08, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> >> Hi Patrick,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Patrick Bellasi
> >> wrote:
> >> > Currently schedutil enforce a maximum O
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Patrick Bellasi
wrote:
> On 13-Mar 03:08, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
>> Hi Patrick,
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Patrick Bellasi
>> wrote:
>> > Currently schedutil enforce a maximum OPP when RT/DL tasks are RUNNABLE.
>> > Such a mandatory policy can
On 13-Mar 03:08, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Patrick Bellasi
> wrote:
> > Currently schedutil enforce a maximum OPP when RT/DL tasks are RUNNABLE.
> > Such a mandatory policy can be made more tunable from userspace thus
> > allowing for exampl
Hi Patrick,
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Patrick Bellasi
wrote:
> Currently schedutil enforce a maximum OPP when RT/DL tasks are RUNNABLE.
> Such a mandatory policy can be made more tunable from userspace thus
> allowing for example to define a reasonable max capacity (i.e.
> frequency) which
Currently schedutil enforce a maximum OPP when RT/DL tasks are RUNNABLE.
Such a mandatory policy can be made more tunable from userspace thus
allowing for example to define a reasonable max capacity (i.e.
frequency) which is required for the execution of a specific RT/DL
workload. This will contrib
13 matches
Mail list logo