Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Manage only online cpus

On 16 December 2012 19:07, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 16 December 2012 18:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> Well, this series makes sense to me, but I'd like to hear what the other >> people >> think. > > That sounds great :) > > Some more information for others about how i reached to these issues

Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Set se->vruntime directly in place_entity()

On 8 November 2012 13:33, Viresh Kumar wrote: > We are first storing the new vruntime in a variable and then storing it in > se->vruntime. Simply update se->vruntime directly. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > --- > kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 +--- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) >

Re: HMP patches v2

On 20 December 2012 13:41, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 19 December 2012 11:57, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >> If I understand the new version of "sched: secure access to other CPU >> statistics" correctly, the effect of the patch is: >> >> Without the patch the cpu will appear to be busy if sum/perio

sched: Consequences of integrating the Per Entity Load Tracking Metric into the Load Balancer

Hi everyone, I have been looking at how different workloads react when the per entity load tracking metric is integrated into the load balancer and what are the possible reasons for it. I had posted the integration patch earlier: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/15/391 Essentially what I am doing is

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: interactive: introduce hispeed2 for big LITTLE systems

On 29 December 2012 01:11, Todd Poynor wrote: > Thanks Viresh, I'm out of the office right now but will look at this more > closely early next year. Happy New Year!! > There's discussions starting among various folks about how to handle > big.LITTLE and what role cpufreq governors vs. platform c

Re: Optimizing Linux with cheap flash drives

On Monday 31 December 2012, Phillip Norisez wrote: > Hello. > > Are you the Arnd Bergmann that published the article "Optimizing Linux > with cheap flash drives" in lwm.net on February 18, 2011? If so, I > would greatly appreciate it if you could answer a question. Yes, that is me. > My name

Re: int64_t definition conflict on Aarch64

On Monday 31 December 2012, Riku Voipio wrote: > It's not good enough - the __u64 and friends are used elsewhere in the > fuse code. However just pulling in linux/types.h as done in out OE > overlay is good enough: > > http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=openembedded/meta-aarch64.git;a=blob;f=recipes-s