On 01/11/2016 06:38 AM, Henning Schild wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:05:59 -0500
> John Ferlan wrote:
>
>>
I'm leaning towards something in the test. I'll check if reverting
these changes alters the results. I don't imagine it will.
>>>
>>> The real question
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:05:59 -0500
John Ferlan wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I'm leaning towards something in the test. I'll check if reverting
> >> these changes alters the results. I don't imagine it will.
> >
> > The real question is which thread it fails on and at what point in
> >
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:05:11 -0500
John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 01/11/2016 06:38 AM, Henning Schild wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:05:59 -0500
> > John Ferlan wrote:
> >
> >>
>
> I'm leaning towards something in the test. I'll check if
>
>>
>> I'm leaning towards something in the test. I'll check if reverting
>> these changes alters the results. I don't imagine it will.
>
> The real question is which thread it fails on and at what point in
> time. My patches only changed the order of operations where threads
> enter the cpuset
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 19:56:33 -0500
John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 01/07/2016 02:01 PM, Henning Schild wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:20:23 -0500
> > John Ferlan wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> No problem - although it seems they've generated a
>>
>> I'm leaning towards something in the test. I'll check if reverting
>> these changes alters the results. I don't imagine it will.
>
> The real question is which thread it fails on and at what point in
> time. My patches only changed the order of operations where threads
> enter the cpuset
On 01/07/2016 02:01 PM, Henning Schild wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:20:23 -0500
> John Ferlan wrote:
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
No problem - although it seems they've generated a regression in
the virttest memtune test suite. I'm 'technically' on vacation
for the
[...]
>> No problem - although it seems they've generated a regression in the
>> virttest memtune test suite. I'm 'technically' on vacation for the
>> next couple of weeks; however, I think/perhaps the problem is a
>> result of this patch and the change to adding the task to the cgroup
>> at
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:20:23 -0500
John Ferlan wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> No problem - although it seems they've generated a regression in
> >> the virttest memtune test suite. I'm 'technically' on vacation
> >> for the next couple of weeks; however, I think/perhaps the
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:27:54 -0500
John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 11/13/2015 11:56 AM, Henning Schild wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > i already explained some of the cgroup problems in some detail so i
> > will not do that again.
> >
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:44:32 -0500
John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 12/21/2015 03:36 AM, Henning Schild wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:27:54 -0500
> > John Ferlan wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/13/2015 11:56 AM, Henning Schild wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
>
On 12/21/2015 03:36 AM, Henning Schild wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:27:54 -0500
> John Ferlan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 11/13/2015 11:56 AM, Henning Schild wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i already explained some of the cgroup problems in some detail so i
>>> will not do that again.
On 11/13/2015 11:56 AM, Henning Schild wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i already explained some of the cgroup problems in some detail so i
> will not do that again.
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2015-October/msg00876.html
>
> I managed to solve some of the problems in the current codebase,
Hi,
i already explained some of the cgroup problems in some detail so i
will not do that again.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2015-October/msg00876.html
I managed to solve some of the problems in the current codebase, and
am now sharing the patches. But they are really just half of
14 matches
Mail list logo