On Monday 11 March 2013 02:58 PM, Rickard Andersson wrote:
> On 03/11/2013 10:12 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Monday 11 March 2013 02:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 03/11/2013 04:24 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Sunday 10 March 2013 11:52 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> [ ... ]
>>>
On 03/11/2013 10:12 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Monday 11 March 2013 02:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 03/11/2013 04:24 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Sunday 10 March 2013 11:52 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[ ... ]
I don't think it is the case for all the ARM platforms, at least we
tested
On Monday 11 March 2013 02:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 03/11/2013 04:24 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Sunday 10 March 2013 11:52 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>> I don't think it is the case for all the ARM platforms, at least we
>>> tested it on vexpress TC2 and u8500, and
On 03/11/2013 04:24 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Sunday 10 March 2013 11:52 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[ ... ]
>> I don't think it is the case for all the ARM platforms, at least we
>> tested it on vexpress TC2 and u8500, and the number of IPI were reduced
>> very significantly increasing the
On Sunday 10 March 2013 11:52 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 03/10/2013 06:33 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Wednesday 27 February 2013 03:47 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> When a cpu goes to a deep idle state where its local timer is shutdown,
>>> it notifies the time framework to use the broad
On 03/10/2013 06:33 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 February 2013 03:47 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> When a cpu goes to a deep idle state where its local timer is shutdown,
>> it notifies the time framework to use the broadcast timer instead.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the broadcast device
On Wednesday 27 February 2013 03:47 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> When a cpu goes to a deep idle state where its local timer is shutdown,
> it notifies the time framework to use the broadcast timer instead.
>
> Unfortunately, the broadcast device could wake up any CPU, including an
> idle one which
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:30:11AM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> > P.S: Time and again it proves that making the local timer wakeup
> > capable solves the issue.
>
> Slightly different take: it proves that hardware people don't talk to
>
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:30:11AM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> P.S: Time and again it proves that making the local timer wakeup
> capable solves the issue.
Slightly different take: it proves that hardware people don't talk to
software people about what they require to make an operating syste
On Wednesday 27 February 2013 03:47 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
When a cpu goes to a deep idle state where its local timer is shutdown,
it notifies the time framework to use the broadcast timer instead.
Unfortunately, the broadcast device could wake up any CPU, including an
idle one which is not c
When a cpu goes to a deep idle state where its local timer is shutdown,
it notifies the time framework to use the broadcast timer instead.
Unfortunately, the broadcast device could wake up any CPU, including an
idle one which is not concerned by the wake up at all.
This implies, in the worst case
11 matches
Mail list logo
