Re: fix cpufreq-ondemand by accounting skipped ticks as idle ticks [Was: [PATCH] i386 no idle HZ aka Dynticks 051203]

On Sunday 04 December 2005 23:24, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> Account ticks skipped dynamically as idle ticks.
>
> This allows the ondemand cpufreq governor to work correctly with dyntick.

I never got around to studying it well enough to figure out how to fix it. 
Thanks very much! 

Cheers,
Con
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

References:
- [PATCH] i386 no idle HZ aka Dynticks 051203
  - From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- fix cpufreq-ondemand by accounting skipped ticks as idle ticks [Was: [PATCH] i386 no idle HZ aka Dynticks 051203]
  - From: Dominik Brodowski <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel
Next by Date: Account time spent in C-States [Was: [PATCH] i386 no idle HZ aka Dynticks 051203]
Previous by thread: fix cpufreq-ondemand by accounting skipped ticks as idle ticks [Was: [PATCH] i386 no idle HZ aka Dynticks 051203]
Next by thread: Re: fix cpufreq-ondemand by accounting skipped ticks as idle ticks [Was: [PATCH] i386 no idle HZ aka Dynticks 051203]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]