Hey,
Op 14-07-12 00:56, Maarten Maathuis schreef:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Maarten Lankhorst
> wrote:
>> A way to trigger an irq will be needed for optimus support since
>> cpu-waiting isn't always viable there. This could also be nice for
>> power saving on since cpu would no longer h
Hey,
Op 14-07-12 00:56, Maarten Maathuis schreef:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Maarten Lankhorst
> wrote:
>> A way to trigger an irq will be needed for optimus support since
>> cpu-waiting isn't always viable there. This could also be nice for
>> power saving on since cpu would no longer h
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Maarten Lankhorst
wrote:
> A way to trigger an irq will be needed for optimus support since
> cpu-waiting isn't always viable there. This could also be nice for
> power saving on since cpu would no longer have to spin, and
> performance might improve slightly on c
A way to trigger an irq will be needed for optimus support since
cpu-waiting isn't always viable there. This could also be nice for
power saving on since cpu would no longer have to spin, and
performance might improve slightly on cpu-limited workloads.
Some way to quantify these effects would be n
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Maarten Lankhorst
wrote:
> A way to trigger an irq will be needed for optimus support since
> cpu-waiting isn't always viable there. This could also be nice for
> power saving on since cpu would no longer have to spin, and
> performance might improve slightly on c
A way to trigger an irq will be needed for optimus support since
cpu-waiting isn't always viable there. This could also be nice for
power saving on since cpu would no longer have to spin, and
performance might improve slightly on cpu-limited workloads.
Some way to quantify these effects would be n
