Hi Steven,
Thanks for sharing your opinion. :)
As, this went out to be a long thread of discussion (thanks Paul), i will try to
answer everything here.
On 26 November 2012 22:10, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> This is a really bad time of year to post new patches :-/
> A lot of people are trying to ge
>> drivers/idle/intel_idle.c | 14 +-
Acked-by: Len Brown
thanks!
-Len
___
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
On 11/15/2012 04:04 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The code looks correct and inviting to me as it has led to good cleanups.
> I dont think passing 0 as the argument to the function
> sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event()
> should lead to problems,as it does not do anything useful with the
> pas
Hi Tejun,
On 26 November 2012 22:45, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 04:08:45PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> I'm pretty skeptical about this. queue_work() w/o explicit CPU
> assignment has always guaranteed that the work item will be executed
> on the same CPU. I don't think there a
Greetings,
The linux-linaro-core-tracking tree has been updated to v3.7-rc6.
The current 12.11 schedule is now:
* October 30: initial v3.7-rc3 based llct build, 3.6 based topics will
not be included if there are conflicts
- Done. The tag is llct-20121101.1. v3.7-rc3 based.
* November 6
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:35:52PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 09:03 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>
> > If I understand correctly (though also suffering turkey OD), the idea is
> > to offload work to more energy-efficient CPUs.
>
> This is determined by a CPU that is
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 09:03 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> If I understand correctly (though also suffering turkey OD), the idea is
> to offload work to more energy-efficient CPUs.
This is determined by a CPU that isn't running the idle task? Is it
because a CPU that just woke up may be runnin
Hello, Viresh.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 04:08:45PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Workqueues queues work on current cpu, if the caller haven't passed a
> preferred
> cpu. This may wake up an idle CPU, which is actually not required.
>
> This work can be processed by any CPU and so we must select a
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:40:27AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 20:30 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 6 November 2012 16:08, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > This is V2 Resend of my sched_select_cpu() work. Resend because didn't
> > > got much
> > > attention on V2. Including m
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 20:30 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 6 November 2012 16:08, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > This is V2 Resend of my sched_select_cpu() work. Resend because didn't got
> > much
> > attention on V2. Including more guys now in cc :)
> >
> > In order to save power, it would be useful t
On 6 November 2012 16:08, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> This is V2 Resend of my sched_select_cpu() work. Resend because didn't got
> much
> attention on V2. Including more guys now in cc :)
>
> In order to save power, it would be useful to schedule work onto non-IDLE cpus
> instead of waking up an IDLE o
From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:23:54 +0530
> Currently when none of CONFIG_NET_DSA_TAG_DSA, CONFIG_NET_DSA_TAG_EDSA and
> CONFIG_NET_DSA_TAG_TRAILER is defined, we get following compilation warnings:
>
> net/dsa/slave.c:51:12: warning: 'dsa_slave_init' defined but not used
> [-Wun
12 matches
Mail list logo
