On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 22:05 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 October 2007 21:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 13:21 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
> > > How about adding this information to the tree then, instead of
> > > creating a new top-level hack, just because
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 19:39, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > in any case i'd like to see the externally visible API get in foremost -
> > and there now seems to be agreement about that. (yay!) Any internal
> > shaping of APIs can be done flexibly between cpusets and the scheduler.
>
> Yup - though
Nick, responding to pj, wrote:
> > However a little bit of additional kernel cpuset code could hide
> > this detail from user space, by recognizing when the user had
> > asked to turn off load balancing on some larger cpuset, and by
> > then calling partition_sched_domains()
Seen this a few times lately on a machine running rawhide when running
screen (and doing "something", it's not automatic. And box works just fine).
I think I saw this a few weeks back, so it's not a new regression.
=
[ INFO: possible recursive locking
Hi Ingo,
Em Qua, 2007-10-03 às 09:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> FYI, there are 7 V4L drivers that produce this (non-fatal) warning:
Those warnings are inoffensive ;) V4L core does provide a generic
release callback. Anyway, we'll take a look on it and fix, to avoid the
warnings.
>
> [
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 19:21, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > Sorry for the confusion: I only meant the sched.c part of that
> > patch, not the full thing.
>
> Ah - ok. We're getting closer then. Good.
>
> Let me be sure I've got this right then.
>
> You prefer the interface from
> > Yeah -- cpusets are hierarchical. And some of the use cases for
> > which cpusets are designed are hierarchical.
>
> But partitioning isn't.
Yup. We've got a square peg and a round hole. An impedance mismatch.
That's the root cause of this entire wibbling session, in my view.
The
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 11:10:58AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:16:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > firstly, there's no notion of "timeslices"
Hi guys
Would it not be clearer to #include and use
the relevant named members of struct setup_header / struct boot_params
rather than the hard-coded values 0x202, 0x1F1, 0x214 ?
--
Chris
On Wed, 2007-10-03 at 09:40 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
[snip]
> + u8 hdr[1024];
> + int r;
> +
> in any case i'd like to see the externally visible API get in foremost -
> and there now seems to be agreement about that. (yay!) Any internal
> shaping of APIs can be done flexibly between cpusets and the scheduler.
Yup - though Nick and I will have to agree to -some- internal interface
* Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Randy!
>
> update patch below.
>
> ---
> Subject: lockstat: documentation
>
> Provide some documentation for CONFIG_LOCK_STAT
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ingo
-
* Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There might be an even simpler way. If the kernel/sched.c routines
> detach_destroy_domains() and build_sched_domains() were exposed as
> external routines, then the cpuset code could call them directly,
> removing the partition_sched_domains()
On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> Updated patch below. I kept the code in compat_ioctl.c, to me it seems
> like the cleanest approach. I need the BLKTRACESETUP32 define both in
> compat_ioctl.c and blktrace.c if I move it, and I need to hard-core the
> struct size or
Thanks Randy!
update patch below.
---
Subject: lockstat: documentation
Provide some documentation for CONFIG_LOCK_STAT
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Documentation/lockstat.txt | 120 +
lib/Kconfig.debug |2
2
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -CONFIG_MAC80211_DEBUGFS=y
it's CONFIG_MAC80211_DEBUGFS=y causing the crash.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Nick wrote:
> Sorry for the confusion: I only meant the sched.c part of that
> patch, not the full thing.
Ah - ok. We're getting closer then. Good.
Let me be sure I've got this right then.
You prefer the interface from your proposed patch, by which the
cpuset code passes sched domain requests
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nodev /debug debugfs rw 0 0
> ) = 290
> read(3, "", 4096) = 0
> close(3)= 0
>
> there's nothing particularly interesting in it. (perhaps debugfs)
disabling debugfs makes the crash go away so
* Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:16:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > firstly, there's no notion of "timeslices" in CFS. (in CFS tasks
> > > > "earn" a right to the CPU, and that "right" is
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [PATCH]: Fill the size of FIFOs
>
> Instead of reporting 0 in size when stating() a
FIFO
--
Whenever you have plenty of ammo, you never miss. Whenever you are low on
ammo, you can't hit the broad side of a barn.
Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:16:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > firstly, there's no notion of "timeslices" in CFS. (in CFS tasks
> > > "earn" a right to the CPU, and that "right" is not sliced in the
> > > traditional sense) But we tried a
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 17:25, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > BTW. as far as the sched.c changes in your patch go, I much prefer
> > the partition_sched_domains API: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/19/85
> >
> > The caller should manage everything itself, rather than
> >
update: occasionally the reading of /proc/mounts succeeds, and it's:
open("/proc/mounts", O_RDONLY|O_LARGEFILE) = 3
fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0444, st_size=0, ...}) = 0
read(3, "rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0\n/dev/root"..., 4096) = 290
write(1, "rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0\n/dev/root"..., 290rootfs /
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 16:58, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > > Yup - it's asking for load balancing over that set. That is why it is
> > > called that. There's no idea here of better or worse load balancing,
> > > that's an internal kernel scheduler subtlety -- it's just a request
> > > that load
hm, i just triggered the procfs crash below with -rc9 on a testbox.
Config attached. It's easy to reproduce it via 'service sshd restart'.
The crash site is:
(gdb) list *0xc017599d
0xc017599d is in seq_path (fs/seq_file.c:354).
349 if (m->count < m->size) {
350
>
> How does the compiler know it doesn't depend on memory?
When it has no m (or equivalent like g) constrained argument
and no memory clobber.
> How do you say it depends on memory?
You add any of the above.
> You really need something as heavy as volatile?
You could do a memory clobber,
From: Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The code in kernel/cgroup.c attach_task() which skips the
attachment of a task to the group it is already in has to be
removed. Cpusets depends on reattaching a task to its current
cpuset, in order to trigger updating the cpus_allowed mask in the
task
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 16:18, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> >> This should work because the result gets used before reading again:
> >>
> >> read_cr3(a);
> >> write_cr3(a | 1);
> >> read_cr3(a);
> >>
> >> But this might be reordered so that b gets read before the write:
> >>
>
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 16:56, Paul Jackson wrote:
> I must NAQ this patch, and I'm surprised to see Nick propose it
> again, as I thought he had already agreed that it didn't suffice.
Sorry for the confusion: I only meant the sched.c part of that
patch, not the full thing.
-
To unsubscribe
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:59:14PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:34:34 +0200
> Ian Kumlien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On tis, 2007-10-02 at 18:02 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > Remove unneeded check that caused problems with jumbo frame sizes.
> > > The
Arjan,
I can experiment with any constraints if you suggest which one.
>From our experiments with gcc, it compares asm strings (sic!!!) to find matches
to be merged! Sigh...
Below are 2 programs which differ in one space in read_cr3_b() asm statement.
The first one compiles incorrectly, while
* Mel Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Nice one Ingo - got it first try. The problem commit was
> > > dd41f596cda0d7d6e4a8b139ffdfabcefdd46528 and it's clear that the
> > > code removed in this commit is put back by this latest patch.
> > > When applied, profile=sleep works as long as
* Mel Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On (02/10/07 14:15), Ingo Molnar didst pronounce:
> >
> > * Mel Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Dirt. Booting with "profile=sleep,2" is broken in 2.6.23-rc9 and
> > > 2.6.23-rc8 but working in 2.6.22. I was checking it out as part of a
>
* Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > firstly, there's no notion of "timeslices" in CFS. (in CFS tasks
> > "earn" a right to the CPU, and that "right" is not sliced in the
> > traditional sense) But we tried a conceptually similar thing [...]
>
> >From kernel/sched_fair.c:
>
> "/*
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> memory-controller-add-documentation.patch
>>> ...
>>> kswapd-should-only-wait-on-io-if-there-is-io.patch
>>>
>>> Hold. This needs a serious going-over by page reclaim people.
>> I mostly agree with your
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 08:50:09AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> >
> >> Davide,
> >>
> >> A further question: what is the expected behavior in the
> >> following scenario:
> >>
> >> 1. Create a timerfd and arm it.
> >> 2.
Cgroup (aka container) code review:
Except for the very last item below, my other comments are minor.
And the last item is pretty easy too - just more important.
Overall - nice stuff. I like this generalization of the cpuset
hierarchy. Thanks.
===
Review comments on
Hi Geert,
Thanks for your repsonse.
In linux-2.6.18 (for MIPS24KE processor):
suppose if i want to do flush only then which API i
should use?
Similarly, if i want to do invalidation only which API
i should use?
Thanks again.
Regards,
Veerasena.
--- Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
This patch adds the manufacturer and card id of teltonica
pcmcia modems to serial_cs.c
Signed-off-by: Attila Kinali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.6.22.7/drivers/serial/serial_cs.c.orig 2007-10-03
09:38:53.0 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.22.7/drivers/serial/serial_cs.c 2007-10-03
Fixing alternative signal stack wraparound.
If a process uses alternative signal stack by using sigaltstack()
and that stack overflow, stack wraparound occurs.
This patch checks whether the signal frame is on the alternative
stack. If the frame is not on there, kill a signal SIGSEGV to the
Fixing alternative signal stack wraparound.
If a process uses alternative signal stack by using sigaltstack()
and that stack overflow, stack wraparound occurs.
This patch checks whether the signal frame is on the alternative
stack. If the frame is not on there, kill a signal SIGSEGV to the
Fixing alternative signal stack wraparound.
If a process uses alternative signal stack by using sigaltstack()
and that stack overflow, stack wraparound occurs.
This patch checks whether the signal frame is on the alternative
stack. If the frame is not on there, kill a signal SIGSEGV to the
Hi everyone,
If a process uses alternative signal stack by using sigaltstack(),
then that stack overflows and stack wraparound occurs.
Simple Explanation:
The accurate esp order is A,B,C,D,...
But now the esp points to A,B,C and A,B,C again.
When I tested sigaltstack() and try to kill a same
On 02-10-2007 08:06, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>> I'm not familiar enough with CFS' internals to help much on the
>> implementation, but there may be some simple compromise yield that
>> might work well enough. How about simply acting as if the task
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Kentaro Takeda wrote:
> +/**
> + * tmy_alloc - allocate memory for temporary purpose.
> + * @size: requested size in bytes.
> + *
> + * Returns '\0'-initialized memory region on success.
> + * Returns NULL on failure.
> + *
> + * This function allocates memory for keeping ACL
On tis, 2007-10-02 at 21:59 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:34:34 +0200
> Ian Kumlien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On tis, 2007-10-02 at 18:02 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > Remove unneeded check that caused problems with jumbo frame sizes.
> > > The check was
Nick wrote:
> BTW. as far as the sched.c changes in your patch go, I much prefer
> the partition_sched_domains API: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/19/85
>
> The caller should manage everything itself, rather than
> partition_sched_domains doing half of the memory allocation.
Please take a closer
* Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Batch schedulers need to be able to specify where they need load
> balancing and where they don't, and they can't use the 'cpu_exclusive'
> flag. The defining characteristic of 'cpu_exclusive' is no overlap of
> CPUs with sibling cpusets. That is
> "AvdV" == Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AvdV> Anders Boström wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> My computer suffers from high load average when the system is idle,
>> introduced by commit 44d306e1508fef6fa7a6eb15a1aba86ef68389a6 .
>>
>> Long story:
>>
>> 2.6.20 and all later
On 02-10-2007 17:37, David Schwartz wrote:
...
> So now I not only have to come up with an example where sched_yield is the
> best practical choice, I have to come up with one where sched_yield is the
> best conceivable choice? Didn't we start out by agreeing these are very rare
> cases? Why are
FYI, there are 7 V4L drivers that produce this (non-fatal) warning:
[ 132.060848] videodev: "vivi" has no release callback. Please fix your
driver for proper sysfs support, see http://lwn.net/Articles/36850/
[ 132.124436] videodev: "Aztech radio" has no release callback. Please
fix your
Nick wrote:
> If code isn't ready to go, it doesn't need to rush, it can just be untangled
> or fixed properly etc.
True ... though we seem to be going in circles now. I doubt
taking longer will help much; we should strive to resolve this
now, if we can.
--
I won't rest till
> > Yup - it's asking for load balancing over that set. That is why it is
> > called that. There's no idea here of better or worse load balancing,
> > that's an internal kernel scheduler subtlety -- it's just a request that
> > load balancing be done.
>
> OK, if it prohibits balancing when
Ingo wrote:
> i've merged your patch to my scheduler queue - see the patch below. (And
> could you send me your SoB line too?) Paul, if we went with the patch
> below, what else would be needed for your purposes?
Nick and I already resolved that, when he first posted this patch
in October of
Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
>> Davide,
>>
>> A further question: what is the expected behavior in the
>> following scenario:
>>
>> 1. Create a timerfd and arm it.
>> 2. Wait until M timer expirations have occurred
>> 3. Modify the settings of the timer
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW. as far as the sched.c changes in your patch go, I much prefer the
> partition_sched_domains API: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/19/85
>
> The caller should manage everything itself, rather than
> partition_sched_domains doing half of the memory
Nick Piggin wrote:
This should work because the result gets used before reading again:
read_cr3(a);
write_cr3(a | 1);
read_cr3(a);
But this might be reordered so that b gets read before the write:
read_cr3(a);
write_cr3(a | 1);
read_cr3(b);
?
I don't see how, as write_cr3 clobbers memory.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:09:27PM +0100, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> Fix SH DMAC code to correctly handle PVR2 cascade DMA.
>
> This updates http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/2/276
>
> (I decided it was better to have the true size of the transfer put in
> via the API and refactor this here. And
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 04:15, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > which you could equally achieve by adding
> > a second set of sched domains (and the global domains could keep
> > globally balancing).
>
> Hmmm ... this could be the key to this discussion.
>
> Nick - can two sched domains
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 04:15, Paul Jackson wrote:
Nick wrote:
which you could equally achieve by adding
a second set of sched domains (and the global domains could keep
globally balancing).
Hmmm ... this could be the key to this discussion.
Nick - can two sched domains overlap? And
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 10:09:27PM +0100, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
Fix SH DMAC code to correctly handle PVR2 cascade DMA.
This updates http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/2/276
(I decided it was better to have the true size of the transfer put in
via the API and refactor this here. And
Nick Piggin wrote:
This should work because the result gets used before reading again:
read_cr3(a);
write_cr3(a | 1);
read_cr3(a);
But this might be reordered so that b gets read before the write:
read_cr3(a);
write_cr3(a | 1);
read_cr3(b);
?
I don't see how, as write_cr3 clobbers memory.
* Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW. as far as the sched.c changes in your patch go, I much prefer the
partition_sched_domains API: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/19/85
The caller should manage everything itself, rather than
partition_sched_domains doing half of the memory
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
Davide,
A further question: what is the expected behavior in the
following scenario:
1. Create a timerfd and arm it.
2. Wait until M timer expirations have occurred
3. Modify the settings of the timer
4. Wait for N
Ingo wrote:
i've merged your patch to my scheduler queue - see the patch below. (And
could you send me your SoB line too?) Paul, if we went with the patch
below, what else would be needed for your purposes?
Nick and I already resolved that, when he first posted this patch
in October of 2006.
Yup - it's asking for load balancing over that set. That is why it is
called that. There's no idea here of better or worse load balancing,
that's an internal kernel scheduler subtlety -- it's just a request that
load balancing be done.
OK, if it prohibits balancing when
Nick wrote:
If code isn't ready to go, it doesn't need to rush, it can just be untangled
or fixed properly etc.
True ... though we seem to be going in circles now. I doubt
taking longer will help much; we should strive to resolve this
now, if we can.
--
I won't rest till
FYI, there are 7 V4L drivers that produce this (non-fatal) warning:
[ 132.060848] videodev: vivi has no release callback. Please fix your
driver for proper sysfs support, see http://lwn.net/Articles/36850/
[ 132.124436] videodev: Aztech radio has no release callback. Please
fix your driver
On 02-10-2007 17:37, David Schwartz wrote:
...
So now I not only have to come up with an example where sched_yield is the
best practical choice, I have to come up with one where sched_yield is the
best conceivable choice? Didn't we start out by agreeing these are very rare
cases? Why are we
AvdV == Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AvdV Anders Boström wrote:
Hi!
My computer suffers from high load average when the system is idle,
introduced by commit 44d306e1508fef6fa7a6eb15a1aba86ef68389a6 .
Long story:
2.6.20 and all later versions I've tested,
* Paul Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Batch schedulers need to be able to specify where they need load
balancing and where they don't, and they can't use the 'cpu_exclusive'
flag. The defining characteristic of 'cpu_exclusive' is no overlap of
CPUs with sibling cpusets. That is
Nick wrote:
BTW. as far as the sched.c changes in your patch go, I much prefer
the partition_sched_domains API: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/19/85
The caller should manage everything itself, rather than
partition_sched_domains doing half of the memory allocation.
Please take a closer look
On tis, 2007-10-02 at 21:59 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:34:34 +0200
Ian Kumlien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On tis, 2007-10-02 at 18:02 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Remove unneeded check that caused problems with jumbo frame sizes.
The check was recently
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Kentaro Takeda wrote:
+/**
+ * tmy_alloc - allocate memory for temporary purpose.
+ * @size: requested size in bytes.
+ *
+ * Returns '\0'-initialized memory region on success.
+ * Returns NULL on failure.
+ *
+ * This function allocates memory for keeping ACL entries.
On 02-10-2007 08:06, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I'm not familiar enough with CFS' internals to help much on the
implementation, but there may be some simple compromise yield that
might work well enough. How about simply acting as if the task used up
Hi everyone,
If a process uses alternative signal stack by using sigaltstack(),
then that stack overflows and stack wraparound occurs.
Simple Explanation:
The accurate esp order is A,B,C,D,...
But now the esp points to A,B,C and A,B,C again.
When I tested sigaltstack() and try to kill a same
Fixing alternative signal stack wraparound.
If a process uses alternative signal stack by using sigaltstack()
and that stack overflow, stack wraparound occurs.
This patch checks whether the signal frame is on the alternative
stack. If the frame is not on there, kill a signal SIGSEGV to the
Fixing alternative signal stack wraparound.
If a process uses alternative signal stack by using sigaltstack()
and that stack overflow, stack wraparound occurs.
This patch checks whether the signal frame is on the alternative
stack. If the frame is not on there, kill a signal SIGSEGV to the
Fixing alternative signal stack wraparound.
If a process uses alternative signal stack by using sigaltstack()
and that stack overflow, stack wraparound occurs.
This patch checks whether the signal frame is on the alternative
stack. If the frame is not on there, kill a signal SIGSEGV to the
Hi,
This patch adds the manufacturer and card id of teltonica
pcmcia modems to serial_cs.c
Signed-off-by: Attila Kinali [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- linux-2.6.22.7/drivers/serial/serial_cs.c.orig 2007-10-03
09:38:53.0 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.22.7/drivers/serial/serial_cs.c 2007-10-03
Cgroup (aka container) code review:
Except for the very last item below, my other comments are minor.
And the last item is pretty easy too - just more important.
Overall - nice stuff. I like this generalization of the cpuset
hierarchy. Thanks.
===
Review comments on
Hi Geert,
Thanks for your repsonse.
In linux-2.6.18 (for MIPS24KE processor):
suppose if i want to do flush only then which API i
should use?
Similarly, if i want to do invalidation only which API
i should use?
Thanks again.
Regards,
Veerasena.
--- Geert Uytterhoeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
memory-controller-add-documentation.patch
...
kswapd-should-only-wait-on-io-if-there-is-io.patch
Hold. This needs a serious going-over by page reclaim people.
I mostly agree with your decision. I am a
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 08:50:09AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
Davide,
A further question: what is the expected behavior in the
following scenario:
1. Create a timerfd and arm it.
2. Wait until M timer
* Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
firstly, there's no notion of timeslices in CFS. (in CFS tasks
earn a right to the CPU, and that right is not sliced in the
traditional sense) But we tried a conceptually similar thing [...]
From kernel/sched_fair.c:
/*
* Targeted
* Mel Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On (02/10/07 14:15), Ingo Molnar didst pronounce:
* Mel Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dirt. Booting with profile=sleep,2 is broken in 2.6.23-rc9 and
2.6.23-rc8 but working in 2.6.22. I was checking it out as part of a
discussion in
* Mel Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice one Ingo - got it first try. The problem commit was
dd41f596cda0d7d6e4a8b139ffdfabcefdd46528 and it's clear that the
code removed in this commit is put back by this latest patch.
When applied, profile=sleep works as long as
Arjan,
I can experiment with any constraints if you suggest which one.
From our experiments with gcc, it compares asm strings (sic!!!) to find matches
to be merged! Sigh...
Below are 2 programs which differ in one space in read_cr3_b() asm statement.
The first one compiles incorrectly, while 2nd
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 09:59:14PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 03:34:34 +0200
Ian Kumlien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On tis, 2007-10-02 at 18:02 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Remove unneeded check that caused problems with jumbo frame sizes.
The check was
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 16:56, Paul Jackson wrote:
I must NAQ this patch, and I'm surprised to see Nick propose it
again, as I thought he had already agreed that it didn't suffice.
Sorry for the confusion: I only meant the sched.c part of that
patch, not the full thing.
-
To unsubscribe
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 16:18, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
This should work because the result gets used before reading again:
read_cr3(a);
write_cr3(a | 1);
read_cr3(a);
But this might be reordered so that b gets read before the write:
read_cr3(a);
From: Paul Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The code in kernel/cgroup.c attach_task() which skips the
attachment of a task to the group it is already in has to be
removed. Cpusets depends on reattaching a task to its current
cpuset, in order to trigger updating the cpus_allowed mask in the
task struct.
How does the compiler know it doesn't depend on memory?
When it has no m (or equivalent like g) constrained argument
and no memory clobber.
How do you say it depends on memory?
You add any of the above.
You really need something as heavy as volatile?
You could do a memory clobber, but
hm, i just triggered the procfs crash below with -rc9 on a testbox.
Config attached. It's easy to reproduce it via 'service sshd restart'.
The crash site is:
(gdb) list *0xc017599d
0xc017599d is in seq_path (fs/seq_file.c:354).
349 if (m-count m-size) {
350
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 16:58, Paul Jackson wrote:
Yup - it's asking for load balancing over that set. That is why it is
called that. There's no idea here of better or worse load balancing,
that's an internal kernel scheduler subtlety -- it's just a request
that load balancing
update: occasionally the reading of /proc/mounts succeeds, and it's:
open(/proc/mounts, O_RDONLY|O_LARGEFILE) = 3
fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0444, st_size=0, ...}) = 0
read(3, rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0\n/dev/root..., 4096) = 290
write(1, rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0\n/dev/root..., 290rootfs / rootfs
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 17:25, Paul Jackson wrote:
Nick wrote:
BTW. as far as the sched.c changes in your patch go, I much prefer
the partition_sched_domains API: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/19/85
The caller should manage everything itself, rather than
partition_sched_domains
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:16:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
firstly, there's no notion of timeslices in CFS. (in CFS tasks
earn a right to the CPU, and that right is not sliced in the
traditional sense) But we tried a conceptually similar
Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[PATCH]: Fill the size of FIFOs
Instead of reporting 0 in size when stating() a
FIFO
--
Whenever you have plenty of ammo, you never miss. Whenever you are low on
ammo, you can't hit the broad side of a barn.
Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
* Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:16:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jarek Poplawski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
firstly, there's no notion of timeslices in CFS. (in CFS tasks
earn a right to the CPU, and that right is not sliced in the
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nodev /debug debugfs rw 0 0
) = 290
read(3, , 4096) = 0
close(3)= 0
there's nothing particularly interesting in it. (perhaps debugfs)
disabling debugfs makes the crash go away so it's debugfs
301 - 400 of 716 matches
Mail list logo
