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]