On Tue, 29 Oct 2024, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
+/* See CXL 3.1 Table 8-164 get dynamic capacity config Output Payload */
+struct cxl_mbox_get_dc_config_out {
+ u8 avail_region_count;
+ u8 regions_returned;
+ u8 rsvd[6];
+ /* See CXL 3.1 Table 8-165 */
+ struct cxl_
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
+/* See CXL 3.1 Table 8-164 get dynamic capacity config Output Payload */
+struct cxl_mbox_get_dc_config_out {
+ u8 avail_region_count;
+ u8 regions_returned;
+ u8 rsvd[6];
+ /* See CXL 3.1 Table 8-165 */
+ struct cxl_
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso
On Tue, 29 Oct 2024, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
Linux has no use for the trailing fields of the Get Dynamic Capacity
Configuration Output Payload (Total number of supported extents, number
of available extents, total number of supported tags, and number of
available tags). Avoid defining those
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
wrote:
In order to comply with the CoC, replace with a hug.
I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by reading
technical comments? This is all beyond me...
Thanks,
Davidlohr
I'm happy to ack your patch but you have to send it correctly.
You are missing a changelog (although it ought to be small due
to the trivial change) as well as you SoB tag. Please consult
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst.
You also need to Cc akpm as he routes such areas to Linus.
Tha
On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
For testing its trivial to hack your kernel and I don't feel this is
something an Admin can make reasonable decisions about.
So why? In general less knobs is better.
+1.
Also, note how b8fa70b51aa (xen, pvticketlocks: Add xen_nopvspin parameter
to d
Any comments? can this make it for v4.10?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
change for the later.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso
---
XXX: This obviously needs a lot of testing.
include/asm-generic/barrier.h | 9 ++
include/linux/osq_lock.h | 10 ++
kernel/locking/mutex.c| 6 +-
kernel/locking/osq_lock.c | 279 +++---
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016, Dave Chinner wrote:
Except that it's DAX
Duh, of course; silly me.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
Currently, when down_read() fails, the active read locking isn't undone
until the rwsem_down_read_failed() function grabs the wait_lock. If the
wait_lock is contended, it may takes a while to get the lock. During
that period, writer lock stealing will be d
On Wed, 05 Oct 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
diff --git a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
index 05a3785..1e6823a 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/osq_lock.c
@@ -12,6 +12,23 @@
*/
static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct optimistic_spin_node,
osq_n
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
The osq_lock() and osq_unlock() function may not provide the necessary
acquire and release barrier in some cases. This patch makes sure
that the proper barriers are provided when osq_lock() is successful
or when osq_unlock() is called.
But why do we need
71.42 (-44.04%)
Stddev 3031981.43 ( 0.00%)42306.07 ( 32.28%)
Stddev 4821317.95 ( 0.00%)42608.50 ( 99.87%)
Stddev 6423433.99 ( 0.00%)21502.56 ( -8.24%)
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso
---
Changes from v1: Stop spinning and block if we are no longer the
top-waiter for the
0.00%)42306.07 ( 32.28%)
Stddev 4821317.95 ( 0.00%)42608.50 ( 99.87%)
Stddev 6423433.99 ( 0.00%)21502.56 ( -8.24%)
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso
---
Hi, so I've rebased the patch against -tip, and has survived about a full day
of pistress pounding. That said, I
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
BTW, my initial attempt for the new futex was to use the same workflow
as the PI futexes, but use mutex which has optimistic spinning instead
of rt_mutex.
Btw, Thomas, do you still have any interest pursuing this for rtmutexes from
-rt into mainline? If
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Also what's the reason that we can't do probabilistic spinning for
> FUTEX_WAIT and have to add yet another specialized variant of futexes?
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 07:37:34PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 09/21/2016 02:59 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 09:42 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>This patch introduces a new futex impl
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Waiman Long wrote:
The default reader spining threshold is current set to 4096. However,
the right reader spinning threshold may vary from one system to
another and among the different architectures. This patch adds a new
kernel boot parameter to modify the threshold value.
That's a lot of patches! ;)
In-Reply-To: <20160521114317.1499-1-andrea.gelm...@gelma.net>
On Sat, 21 May 2016, Andrea Gelmini wrote:
Other than the patch itself looking borken, please improve the title and
add some sort of changelog, although trivial.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
To unsubscribe from t
... do this next to smp_load_acquire when first mentioning
ACQUIRE. While this call is briefly explained and ctrl
dependencies are mentioned later, it does not hurt the reader.
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso
---
Documentation/memory-barriers.txt | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2
21 matches
Mail list logo
