Hi, it seems that somehow CONFIG_LATENCYTOP and CONFIG_HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT are not even in the /boot/config-* generated files
[root@calxeda-arm-soc-02 SOURCES]# grep -i latency /boot/config-3. config-3.6.10-8.fc18.armv7l.highbank config-3.8.11-200.fc18.armv7l [root@calxeda-arm-soc-02 SOURCES]# grep -i latency /boot/config-3.* [root@calxeda-arm-soc-02 SOURCES]#
Is this intentional or can I open a bug on it? I tried to follow the process that a config file is generated from during rpmbuild but it was not clear to me.. a pointer on how that happens would also be nice.
On 05/10/2013 02:10 PM, John Brier wrote:
Hi, it seems that somehow CONFIG_LATENCYTOP and CONFIG_HAVE_LATENCYTOP_SUPPORT are not even in the /boot/config-* generated files
[root@calxeda-arm-soc-02 SOURCES]# grep -i latency /boot/config-3. config-3.6.10-8.fc18.armv7l.highbank config-3.8.11-200.fc18.armv7l [root@calxeda-arm-soc-02 SOURCES]# grep -i latency /boot/config-3.* [root@calxeda-arm-soc-02 SOURCES]#
Is this intentional or can I open a bug on it? I tried to follow the process that a config file is generated from during rpmbuild but it was not clear to me.. a pointer on how that happens would also be nice.
Currently, 32-bit ARM LATENCYTOP support is dependent upon !SMP. Separately, I have been screening through all of the discrepancies between x86_64 and AArch64 and have already identified this as a feature enhancement needed for 64-bit. I have that, and a laundry list of related features that I will be raising with ARM/Linaro elsewhere.
Jon.
On 05/10/2013 03:55 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
Currently, 32-bit ARM LATENCYTOP support is dependent upon !SMP. Separately, I have been screening through all of the discrepancies between x86_64 and AArch64 and have already identified this as a feature enhancement needed for 64-bit. I have that, and a laundry list of related features that I will be raising with ARM/Linaro elsewhere.
Jon.
Thanks for this info
-
John Brier -
Jon Masters