On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 06:17:37PM +, Mark Hambleton wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
>
> > > +obj-$(CONFIG_BIG_LITTLE) += arm_big_little.o
> > There is nothing big.LITTLE specific in all of this, so arm_idle.c would
> >be better.
>
> I figured that because the current version calls into the big.little
On 16 January 2013 04:15, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Rajagopal Venkat (2013-01-08 22:29:48)
>> while reparenting a clock, NULL check is done for clock in
>> consideration and its new parent. So re-check is not required.
>> If done, else part becomes unreachable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajagopal
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Mark Hambleton wrote:
> > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_BIG_LITTLE) += arm_big_little.o
> > > > There is nothing big.LITTLE specific in all of this, so arm_idle.c would
> > > >be better.
> > >
> > > I figured that because the current version calls into the big.little
> > > platform po
On 01/08/2013 04:41 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thank you very much for such a clear and comprehensive explanation.
> So when I put together the problem and the proposed solution pieces in the
> current
> scheduler scalability,the following was what I found:
>
> 1. select_idle_sibl
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:08:21 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 01/08/2013 04:41 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> Thank you very much for such a clear and comprehensive explanation.
>> So when I put together the problem and the proposed solution pieces in the
>> current
>> scheduler scalabil