Nathan Lynch wrote:
> We need some clarity on how asm-generic/topology.h is intended to be
> used. I suspect that it's supposed to be unconditionally included at
> the end of the architecture's topology.h so that any elements which
> are undefined by the arch have sensible default definitions. Lo
Nick Piggin wrote:
Matthew Dobson wrote:
While looking at some bugs related to OOM handling in 2.6, Martin
Bligh and I noticed some order 0 page allocation failures from kswapd:
>>
If, while the system is under memory pressure, something attempts to
allocate a page from interrupt context
While looking at some bugs related to OOM handling in 2.6, Martin Bligh and
I noticed some order 0 page allocation failures from kswapd:
kswapd0: page allocation failure. order:0, mode:0x50
[] __alloc_pages+0x288/0x295
[] __get_free_pages+0x18/0x24
[] kmem_getpages+0x15/0x94
[] cache_grow+0x1
Martin J. Bligh wrote:
Sorry to reply a long quiet thread, but I've been trading emails with
Paul Jackson on this subject recently, and I've been unable to convince
either him or myself that merging CPUSETs and CKRM is as easy as I once
believed. I'm still convinced the CPU side is doable, but
Paul Jackson wrote:
Matthew wrote:
The reason Paul and I decided that they weren't totally reconcilable is
because of the memory binding side of the CPUSETs code.
Speak for yourself, Matthew ;).
I agree you that the scheduler experts (I'm not one, nor do I aspire to
be one) may well find that it
Nick Piggin wrote:
Dinakar Guniguntala wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 03:59:49PM -0800, Matthew Dobson wrote:
Sorry to reply a long quiet thread, but I've been trading emails with
Paul Jackson on this subject recently, and I've been unable to
convince either him or myself that mergi
Dinakar Guniguntala wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 03:59:49PM -0800, Matthew Dobson wrote:
Sorry to reply a long quiet thread, but I've been trading emails with Paul
Jackson on this subject recently, and I've been unable to convince either
him or myself that merging CPUSETs and CKRM
Matthew Dobson wrote:
On Sun, 2004-10-03 at 16:53, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
Martin wrote:
Matt had proposed having a separate sched_domain tree for each cpuset, which
made a lot of sense, but seemed harder to do in practice because "exclusive"
in cpusets doesn't really mean exclusive
Looks good to me!
Acked-by: Matthew Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch makes a needlessly global struct static.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/i386/mach-default/topology.c |2 +-
include/asm-i386/cpu.h|1 -
2 file
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 10:07, Matthew Dobson wrote:
> include/asm-i386/mach-numaq/mach_apic.h complains about an implicit
> declaration of num_online_nodes():
>
> In file included from arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c:19:
> include/asm-i386/mach-numaq/mach_apic.h: In function `set
include/asm-i386/mach-numaq/mach_apic.h complains about an implicit
declaration of num_online_nodes():
In file included from arch/i386/kernel/cpu/intel.c:19:
include/asm-i386/mach-numaq/mach_apic.h: In function `setup_portio_remap':
include/asm-i386/mach-numaq/mach_apic.h:115: warning: implicit de
11 matches
Mail list logo
