On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 09:22 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Does it sound good for you if I update the comment of this patch with
> the explanation of the previous mails or do you need more information
> ?
>
No, looks ok. Just got stuck in the mailbox + extra holidays delay.
Got it queued now, Th
Hi Peter,
Does it sound good for you if I update the comment of this patch with
the explanation of the previous mails or do you need more information
?
Thanks,
Vincent
On 16 December 2011 09:23, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 16 December 2011 01:58, Suresh Siddha wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 0
On 16 December 2011 01:58, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 05:36 -0800, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> I'm using cyclictest to easily reproduce the problem on my dual cortex-A9
>
> So does the cyclictest itself exhibit the problem or running cyclictest
> with another workload showed the pr
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 05:36 -0800, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> I'm using cyclictest to easily reproduce the problem on my dual cortex-A9
So does the cyclictest itself exhibit the problem or running cyclictest
with another workload showed the problem? In other words, what numbers
of the workload did y
On 15 December 2011 11:08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 20:21 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> With a lot of small tasks, the softirq sched is nearly never called
>> when no_hz is enable. In this case the load_balance is mainly called with
>> the newly_idle mode which doesn't upda
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 20:21 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> With a lot of small tasks, the softirq sched is nearly never called
> when no_hz is enable. In this case the load_balance is mainly called with
> the newly_idle mode which doesn't update the cpu_power.
> Add a next_update field which ensur
