Shawn Guo; linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems
On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 03:28:30 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I actually don't agree with that, becuase t
On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 02:58:35 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> Ok, I'll rebase and retest from linux-next then.
Thanks!
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
___
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists
On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 03:28:30 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I actually don't agree with that, becuase the Nathan's apprach shows the
> > reasoning that leads to the RCU introduction quite clearly. So if you
> > don't have technical
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I actually don't agree with that, becuase the Nathan's apprach shows the
> reasoning that leads to the RCU introduction quite clearly. So if you
> don't have technical problems with the patchset, I'm going to take it as is.
Great!!
Okay
On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 01:58:20 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 04, 2013 04:45:11 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> >> I am noticing the cpufreq_driver_lock is quite hot.
> >> On an idle 512 system perf shows me most of the s
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 04, 2013 04:45:11 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
>> I am noticing the cpufreq_driver_lock is quite hot.
>> On an idle 512 system perf shows me most of the system time is spent on this
>> lock. This is quite signifigant as top
