On 30-11-15, 13:05, Lucas Stach wrote:
> I don't want to block this patch on that, but maybe as a thought for
> further consideration: Wouldn't it make sense to use a single unbound
> deferrable work item for this? There was some work to make this possible
> already: "timer: make deferrable cpu unb
Am Donnerstag, den 29.10.2015, 17:57 +0530 schrieb Viresh Kumar:
> cpufreq governors evaluate load at sampling rate and based on that they
> update frequency for a group of CPUs belonging to the same cpufreq
> policy.
>
> This is required to be done in a single thread for all policy->cpus, but
> b
Hi Viresh,
On 30 October 2015 at 22:36, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Ashwin,
>
> On 30-10-15, 16:46, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
>> On 29 October 2015 at 08:27, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > This could be made lightweight by keeping per-cpu deferred timers with a
>> > single work item, which is scheduled by t
Hi Ashwin,
On 30-10-15, 16:46, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
> On 29 October 2015 at 08:27, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > This could be made lightweight by keeping per-cpu deferred timers with a
> > single work item, which is scheduled by the first timer that expires.
>
> Single shared work item - would perh
Hi Viresh,
On 29 October 2015 at 08:27, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> cpufreq governors evaluate load at sampling rate and based on that they
> update frequency for a group of CPUs belonging to the same cpufreq
> policy.
>
> This is required to be done in a single thread for all policy->cpus, but
> becau
5 matches
Mail list logo
