Hello Sanjay,
You are welcome.
Earlier I submitted some patches in powedebug and powertop tools. Please
feel free to merge if you find any useful.
http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-dev/2014-April/017117.html
http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-dev/2014-May/017141.html
http://lists.li
On Wednesday 07 May 2014 03:34 PM, Mohammad Merajul Islam Molla wrote:
Hello Sanjay,
One suggestion - its probably better to precede the output lines with
cpu no. As currently output from child processes are intermixed as below
and difficult to co-relate.
jiffies are : 1 usecs
found 4 cpu(s
Hello Sanjay,
One suggestion - its probably better to precede the output lines with cpu
no. As currently output from child processes are intermixed as below and
difficult to co-relate.
jiffies are : 1 usecs
found 4 cpu(s)
duration: 120 secs, #sleep: 1200, delay: 10 us
duration: 120 secs,
On Wednesday 30 April 2014 02:04 PM, Mohammad Merajul Islam Molla wrote:
Hello Sanjay,
As far I know, if option argument is 0, the parent will wait for
Looks like waiting is done if childs exit. I checked for the offlined
CPU case, if there are no child processes, waitpid returns -1. Setting
On 04/30/2014 10:34 AM, Mohammad Merajul Islam Molla wrote:
Hello Sanjay,
As far I know, if option argument is 0, the parent will wait for
specified child pid to terminate, its not for immediate return as in
case of WNOHANG. This is probably the intended use of the code (author
will be able to co
Hello Sanjay,
As far I know, if option argument is 0, the parent will wait for
specified child pid to terminate, its not for immediate return as in case
of WNOHANG. This is probably the intended use of the code (author will be
able to confirm). Changing 0 to WNOHANG macro will change the meaning o
On Wednesday 30 April 2014 12:14 PM, Mohammad Merajul Islam Molla wrote:
Hello,
I would like to share two observations -
1. Is it necessary to initialize nrcpus = 2 anymore?
thanks, ack
2. Another problem may happen in the code below where waitpid is called -
for (i = 0; i < nrcpus; i++)
Hello,
I would like to share two observations -
1. Is it necessary to initialize nrcpus = 2 anymore?
2. Another problem may happen in the code below where waitpid is called -
for (i = 0; i < nrcpus; i++) {
int status;
waitpid(pids[i], &status, 0);
currently percpu process array is set to 2, which results in segfault
Signed-off-by: Sanjay Singh Rawat
---
cpuidle/cpuidle_killer.c |7 ++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/cpuidle/cpuidle_killer.c b/cpuidle/cpuidle_killer.c
index 5e7320f..09009ef 100644
---
