On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 7:32 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> On 26-06-20, 07:44, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 25-06-20, 13:47, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:23 AM Viresh Kumar
> > > wrote:
> > > > I am sorry but I am not fully sure of what the problem is. Can you
> > > > describe that
On 26-06-20, 07:44, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-06-20, 13:47, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:23 AM Viresh Kumar
> > wrote:
> > > I am sorry but I am not fully sure of what the problem is. Can you
> > > describe that by giving an example with some random frequency, and
> > > tell th
On 25-06-20, 13:47, Wei Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:23 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > I am sorry but I am not fully sure of what the problem is. Can you
> > describe that by giving an example with some random frequency, and
> > tell the expected and actual behavior ?
> >
> The problem is s
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 3:23 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> On 24-06-20, 23:46, Wei Wang wrote:
> > To avoid reducing the frequency of a CPU prematurely, we skip reducing
> > the frequency if the CPU had been busy recently.
> >
> > This should not be done when the limits of the policy are changed, for
On 24-06-20, 23:46, Wei Wang wrote:
> To avoid reducing the frequency of a CPU prematurely, we skip reducing
> the frequency if the CPU had been busy recently.
>
> This should not be done when the limits of the policy are changed, for
> example due to thermal throttling. We should always get the f
5 matches
Mail list logo
