On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Dario Faggioli
wrote:
> In fact, what we have right now, i.e., tickle_idlers_none
> and tickle_idlers_some, is not good enough for describing
> what really happens in the various tickling functions of
> the various scheduler.
>
> Switch to a more descriptive set o
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Dario Faggioli
wrote:
>
> In fact, what we have right now, i.e., tickle_idlers_none
> and tickle_idlers_some, is not good enough for describing
> what really happens in the various tickling functions of
> the various scheduler.
>
> Switch to a more descriptive set
In fact, what we have right now, i.e., tickle_idlers_none
and tickle_idlers_some, is not good enough for describing
what really happens in the various tickling functions of
the various scheduler.
Switch to a more descriptive set of counters, such as:
- tickled_no_cpu: for when we don't tickle any
