On Thursday 04 October 2007 01:21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > I don't know if Linus actually disliked the patch itself, or disliked
> > my (maybe confusingly worded) rationale?
>
> Yes. I'd happily accept the patch, but I'd want
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 12:12, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 05:47:52PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > block_page_mkwrite() is just using generic interfaces to do this,
> > > same as pretty much any write() system call. The idea was to make it
> >
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 12:12, Mark Fasheh wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 05:47:52PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
block_page_mkwrite() is just using generic interfaces to do this,
same as pretty much any write() system call. The idea was to make it
as similar to the write() call path
On Thursday 04 October 2007 01:21, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
I don't know if Linus actually disliked the patch itself, or disliked
my (maybe confusingly worded) rationale?
Yes. I'd happily accept the patch, but I'd want it clarified and made
obvious what
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 16:40, Huang, Ying wrote:
+unsigned long copy_from_phys(void *to, unsigned long from_phys,
+ unsigned long n)
+{
+ struct page *page;
+ void *from;
+ unsigned long remain = n, offset, trunck;
+
+ while (remain) {
+
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 18:22, Huang, Ying wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 01:25 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 16:40, Huang, Ying wrote:
+unsigned long copy_from_phys(void *to, unsigned long from_phys,
+ unsigned long n)
I suppose that's
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 18:55, Huang, Ying wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 02:06 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
I'm just wondering whether you really need to access highmem in
boot code...
Because the zero page (boot_parameters) of i386 boot protocol has 4k
limitation, a linked list style boot
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 04:39, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
The tight memory restrictions on stack usage do not come about because
of the difficulty in increasing the stack size :) It is because we want
to keep stack sizes small!
Increasing
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 00:52, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
I have done some tests which indicate a couple of very basic common tools
don't do much zero-page activity (ie. kbuild). And also combined with
some logical arguments to say that a sane app
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 11:26, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
We already use 32k stacks on IA64. So the memory argument fail there.
I'm talking about generic code.
The stack size is set in arch code not in generic code.
Generic code must assume a 4K
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 12:22, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
Where do you suggest I go from here? Is there any way I can
convince you to try it? Make it a config option? (just kidding)
No, I'll take the damn patch, but quite frankly, I think your
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 23:50, Michael Stiller wrote:
Hi list,
i'm developing an application (in C) which needs to write about
1Gbit/s (125Mb/s) to a disk array attached via U320 SCSI.
It runs on Dual Core 2 Xeons @2Ghz utilizing kernel 2.6.22.7.
I buffer the data in (currently 4) 400Mb
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 03:36, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > The problem can become non-rare on special low memory machines doing
> > > wild swapping things though.
> >
> > But only your huge systems will be using hu
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 09:36, David Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 04:37:00PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 09 October 2007 02:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Force a balance call if ->page_mkwrite() was successful.
> >
> > Would it b
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 03:51, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:28:43 -0700
> > I'll now add remap_file_pages soon.
> > Maybe those other 2 tests aren't strong enough (?).
> > Or maybe they don't return a non-0 exit status even when they fail...
> > (I'll check.)
>
> Perhaps Yan
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 03:04, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 19:45:08 +0800 "Yan Zheng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > The test for VM_CAN_NONLINEAR always fails
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yan Zheng<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > diff -ur linux-2.6.23-rc9/mm/fremap.c
ing. I doubt anybody will be using nonlinear mappings on anything but
regular files for the time being, but as a trivial fix, I think this probably
should go into 2.6.23.
Thanks for spotting this problem
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I hope Nick or Miklos is clearer on
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 02:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> It seems that with the recent usage of ->page_mkwrite() a little detail
> was overlooked.
>
> .22-rc1 merged OCFS2 usage of this hook
> .23-rc1 merged XFS usage
> .24-rc1 will most likely merge NFS usage
>
> Please consider this for .23
Hi,
This is overdue, sorry. Got a little complicated, and I've been away from
my filesystem test setup so I didn't want ot send it (lucky, coz I found
a bug after more substantial testing).
Anyway, RFC?
---
Implement nobh in new aops. This is a bit tricky.
FWIW, nobh_truncate is now implemented
Hi,
This is overdue, sorry. Got a little complicated, and I've been away from
my filesystem test setup so I didn't want ot send it (lucky, coz I found
a bug after more substantial testing).
Anyway, RFC?
---
Implement nobh in new aops. This is a bit tricky.
FWIW, nobh_truncate is now implemented
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 02:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
It seems that with the recent usage of -page_mkwrite() a little detail
was overlooked.
.22-rc1 merged OCFS2 usage of this hook
.23-rc1 merged XFS usage
.24-rc1 will most likely merge NFS usage
Please consider this for .23 final and
for the time being, but as a trivial fix, I think this probably
should go into 2.6.23.
Thanks for spotting this problem
Acked-by: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I hope Nick or Miklos is clearer on what the risks are.
(Apologies for all the nots and nons here, I'm embarrassed
after just criticizing
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 03:04, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 19:45:08 +0800 Yan Zheng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all
The test for VM_CAN_NONLINEAR always fails
Signed-off-by: Yan Zheng[EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff -ur linux-2.6.23-rc9/mm/fremap.c linux/mm/fremap.c
---
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 03:51, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:28:43 -0700
I'll now add remap_file_pages soon.
Maybe those other 2 tests aren't strong enough (?).
Or maybe they don't return a non-0 exit status even when they fail...
(I'll check.)
Perhaps Yan Zheng can
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 09:36, David Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 04:37:00PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 02:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Force a balance call if -page_mkwrite() was successful.
Would it be better to just have the callers
On Tuesday 09 October 2007 03:36, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
The problem can become non-rare on special low memory machines doing
wild swapping things though.
But only your huge systems will be using huge stacks?
I have no idea who else would
On Friday 05 October 2007 12:44, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:43:32 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > David's change 10a8d6ae4b3182d6588a5809a8366343bc295c20, "i386: add
> > ptep_test_and_clear_{dirty,young}" has introduced an SMP race which
> > affects the
On Friday 05 October 2007 19:24, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Nick,
>
> I'm running into a problem trying to use your suggested
> partition_sched_domains(cpumask_t *partition) routine the way
> I thought I was supposed to be able to use it.
>
> If I ask to set up the same partition twice in a row having
On Friday 05 October 2007 07:20, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > Well we can now address the rarity. That is the whole point of the
> > > patchset.
> >
> > Introducing complexity to fight a very rare problem with a good
> > fallback (refusing to fork more
On Friday 05 October 2007 07:20, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Rik van Riel wrote:
Well we can now address the rarity. That is the whole point of the
patchset.
Introducing complexity to fight a very rare problem with a good
fallback (refusing to fork more tasks, as well
On Friday 05 October 2007 19:24, Paul Jackson wrote:
Nick,
I'm running into a problem trying to use your suggested
partition_sched_domains(cpumask_t *partition) routine the way
I thought I was supposed to be able to use it.
If I ask to set up the same partition twice in a row having
just
On Friday 05 October 2007 12:44, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:43:32 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
David's change 10a8d6ae4b3182d6588a5809a8366343bc295c20, i386: add
ptep_test_and_clear_{dirty,young} has introduced an SMP race which
affects the Xen pv-ops
On Thursday 04 October 2007 00:53, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thursday 04 October 2007 16:37, gurudas pai wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While running Oracle database test on x86/6GB RAM machine panics with
> > following messages.
>
> Hi,
>
> Hmm, seems like somet
On Thursday 04 October 2007 16:37, gurudas pai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While running Oracle database test on x86/6GB RAM machine panics with
> following messages.
Hi,
Hmm, seems like something in sys_remap_file_pages might have broken.
It's a bit hard to work out from the backtrace, though.
Is it
On Thursday 04 October 2007 16:37, gurudas pai wrote:
Hi,
While running Oracle database test on x86/6GB RAM machine panics with
following messages.
Hi,
Hmm, seems like something in sys_remap_file_pages might have broken.
It's a bit hard to work out from the backtrace, though.
Is it possible
On Thursday 04 October 2007 00:53, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Thursday 04 October 2007 16:37, gurudas pai wrote:
Hi,
While running Oracle database test on x86/6GB RAM machine panics with
following messages.
Hi,
Hmm, seems like something in sys_remap_file_pages might have broken.
It's
wmb() on x86 must always include a barrier, because stores can go out of
order in many cases when dealing with devices (eg. WC memory).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6/include/asm-i386/sy
.
smp_rmb on buggy pentium pros remains a locked op, which is apparently
required.
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Index: linux-2.6/include/asm-i386/system.h
===
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/asm-i386/system.h
+++
sfences _before_ movnt*
everywhere too? ]
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86_64/lib/copy_user_nocache.S
===
--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86_64/lib/copy_user_nocache.S
+++ linux-2.6/arch/x86_
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 22:17, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > OK, so I don't exactly understand you either. To make it simple, can
> > you give a concrete example of a cpuset hierarchy that wouldn't
> > work?
>
> It's more a matter of knowing how my third party batch scheduler
> coders
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 22:41, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > pdflush
> > is not pinned at all and can be dynamically created and destroyed. Ditto
> > for kjournald, as well as many others.
>
> Whatever is not pinned is moved out of the top cpuset, on the kind of
> systems I'm most familiar with.
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 22:14, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > These are what I'm worried about, and things like kswapd, pdflush,
> > could definitely use a huge amount of CPU.
> >
> > If you are interested in hard partitioning the system, you most
> > definitely want these things to be balanced
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 21:38, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > OK, so to really do anything different (from a non-partitioned setup),
> > you would need to set sched_load_balance=0 for the root cpuset?
> > Suppose you do that to hard partition the machine, what happens to
> > newly created tasks
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 05:20:03PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> In lib/pagewalk.c, I've been using the various forms of
> {pgd,pud,pmd}_none_or_clear_bad while walking page tables as that
> seemed the canonical way to do things. Lately (eg with -rc7-mm1),
> these have been triggering messages like
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 19:55, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > > 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
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 07:22, Andrew Morton wrote:
> remove-zero_page.patch
>
> Linus dislikes it. Probably drop it.
I don't know if Linus actually disliked the patch itself, or disliked
my (maybe confusingly worded) rationale?
To clarify: it is not zero_page that fundamentally causes a
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
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
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
> >
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
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);
> >>
> >>
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 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 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);
write_cr3
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
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 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 your proposed
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 and
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 07:22, Andrew Morton wrote:
remove-zero_page.patch
Linus dislikes it. Probably drop it.
I don't know if Linus actually disliked the patch itself, or disliked
my (maybe confusingly worded) rationale?
To clarify: it is not zero_page that fundamentally causes a
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 19:55, Paul Jackson wrote:
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
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 05:20:03PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
In lib/pagewalk.c, I've been using the various forms of
{pgd,pud,pmd}_none_or_clear_bad while walking page tables as that
seemed the canonical way to do things. Lately (eg with -rc7-mm1),
these have been triggering messages like bad
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 21:38, Paul Jackson wrote:
OK, so to really do anything different (from a non-partitioned setup),
you would need to set sched_load_balance=0 for the root cpuset?
Suppose you do that to hard partition the machine, what happens to
newly created tasks like kernel
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 22:14, Paul Jackson wrote:
These are what I'm worried about, and things like kswapd, pdflush,
could definitely use a huge amount of CPU.
If you are interested in hard partitioning the system, you most
definitely want these things to be balanced across the
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 22:41, Paul Jackson wrote:
pdflush
is not pinned at all and can be dynamically created and destroyed. Ditto
for kjournald, as well as many others.
Whatever is not pinned is moved out of the top cpuset, on the kind of
systems I'm most familiar with. They are
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 22:17, Paul Jackson wrote:
Nick wrote:
OK, so I don't exactly understand you either. To make it simple, can
you give a concrete example of a cpuset hierarchy that wouldn't
work?
It's more a matter of knowing how my third party batch scheduler
coders think.
sfences _before_ movnt*
everywhere too? ]
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86_64/lib/copy_user_nocache.S
===
--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86_64/lib/copy_user_nocache.S
+++ linux-2.6/arch/x86_64/lib
wmb() on x86 must always include a barrier, because stores can go out of
order in many cases when dealing with devices (eg. WC memory).
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: linux-2.6/include/asm-i386/system.h
.
smp_rmb on buggy pentium pros remains a locked op, which is apparently
required.
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Index: linux-2.6/include/asm-i386/system.h
===
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/asm-i386/system.h
+++ linux-2.6
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 15:21, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > In the meantime, that patch should be merged though, shouldn't it?
>
> Which patch do you refer to:
> 1) the year old patch to disconnect cpusets and sched domains:
> cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch
> 2) my
On Monday 01 October 2007 13:42, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > Moreover, sched_load_balance doesn't really sound like a good name
> > for asking for a partition.
>
> Yup - it's not a good name for asking for a partition.
>
> That's because it isn't asking for a partition.
>
> It's asking
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 07:34, Paul Jackson wrote:
> In -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andrew wrote:
> > cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch
> >
> > Paul continues to wibble over this. Hold, I guess.
>
> Oh dear ... after looking at the following to figure out what
> a wibble
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:27, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On 10/02/2007 11:28 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:08:32 +0400
> >
> > Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Some gcc versions (I checked at least 4.1.1 from RHEL5 & 4.1.2 from
> >> gentoo) can generate
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 something that you think
> > you need doesn't exist.
>
> So you
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 02:06, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > #
> > # slub && antifrag
> > #
> > have-kswapd-keep-a-minimum-order-free-other-than-order-0.patch
> > only-check-absolute-watermarks-for-alloc_high-and-alloc_harder-allocation
> >s.patch
On Sunday 30 September 2007 01:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 13:11 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Friday 28 September 2007 17:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Replace raw TestSetPageLocked() usage with trylock_page()
> >
> > I have such a thing q
On Monday 01 October 2007 04:03, Soeren Sandmann wrote:
> This patch adds the ability to drop mapped pages with
> /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches. This is useful to get repeatable
> measurements of startup time for applications.
>
> Without it, pages that are mapped in already-running applications will
>
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 06:50, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > I thought it was slower. Have you fixed the performance regression?
> > (OK, I read further down that you are still working on it but not
> > confirmed yet...)
>
> Th
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 07:01, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 11:20 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > Really? That means we can no longer even allocate stacks for forking.
> >
> > I think I'm running with 4k stacks...
>
> 4k
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 07:01, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 11:20 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
Really? That means we can no longer even allocate stacks for forking.
I think I'm running with 4k stacks...
4k stacks will
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 06:50, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
I thought it was slower. Have you fixed the performance regression?
(OK, I read further down that you are still working on it but not
confirmed yet...)
The problem is with the weird way
On Sunday 30 September 2007 01:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 13:11 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Friday 28 September 2007 17:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Replace raw TestSetPageLocked() usage with trylock_page()
I have such a thing queued too, for the lock bitops patches
On Monday 01 October 2007 04:03, Soeren Sandmann wrote:
This patch adds the ability to drop mapped pages with
/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches. This is useful to get repeatable
measurements of startup time for applications.
Without it, pages that are mapped in already-running applications will
not
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 02:06, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
#
# slub antifrag
#
have-kswapd-keep-a-minimum-order-free-other-than-order-0.patch
only-check-absolute-watermarks-for-alloc_high-and-alloc_harder-allocation
s.patch
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 something that you think
you need doesn't exist.
So you suggest adding
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:27, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
On 10/02/2007 11:28 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 18:08:32 +0400
Kirill Korotaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some gcc versions (I checked at least 4.1.1 from RHEL5 4.1.2 from
gentoo) can generate incorrect code with
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 07:34, Paul Jackson wrote:
In -mm merge plans for 2.6.24, Andrew wrote:
cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch
Paul continues to wibble over this. Hold, I guess.
Oh dear ... after looking at the following to figure out what
a wibble is, I wonder
On Monday 01 October 2007 13:42, Paul Jackson wrote:
Nick wrote:
Moreover, sched_load_balance doesn't really sound like a good name
for asking for a partition.
Yup - it's not a good name for asking for a partition.
That's because it isn't asking for a partition.
It's asking for load
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 15:21, Paul Jackson wrote:
In the meantime, that patch should be merged though, shouldn't it?
Which patch do you refer to:
1) the year old patch to disconnect cpusets and sched domains:
cpuset-remove-sched-domain-hooks-from-cpusets.patch
2) my patch of a
Hi Denys, thanks for reporting (btw. please reply-to-all when replying
on lkml).
You say that SLAB is better than SLUB on an otherwise identical kernel,
but I didn't see if you quantified the actual numbers? It sounds like there
is still a regression with SLAB?
On Monday 01 October 2007 03:48,
On Monday 01 October 2007 06:12, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:09:28 +1000 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Sunday 30 September 2007 05:20, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > We can't "run out of unfragmented memory" for an o
On Monday 01 October 2007 04:07, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > The user should just be able to specify exactly the partitioning of
> > tasks required, and cpusets should ask the scheduler to do the best
> > job of load balancing possible.
>
> If the cpusets which have 'sched_load_balance'
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 09:07:30AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > >
> > > The non-temporal stores should be basically considered to be "IO", not
> > > any
> > > normal memory operatio
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 12:12:52PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > [ This is true for x86's sfence/lfence, but raises a question about Linux's
> > memory barriers. Does anybody expect that a sequence of smp_wmb and smp_rmb
> > w
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 08:16:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 03:28:48PM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Thanks v much for confirming, everyone.
> > Signed-off-by: Nick
On Sunday 30 September 2007 20:44, Paul Jackson wrote:
> From: Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Add a new per-cpuset flag called 'sched_load_balance'.
>
> When enabled in a cpuset (the default value) it tells the kernel
> scheduler that the scheduler should provide the normal load
> balancing
On Sunday 30 September 2007 05:20, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 06:19:33 +1000 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Saturday 29 September 2007 19:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:14:02 +0200 Peter Zijlstra
> > >
On Sunday 30 September 2007 05:20, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 06:19:33 +1000 Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Saturday 29 September 2007 19:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:14:02 +0200 Peter Zijlstra
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
oom-killings
On Sunday 30 September 2007 20:44, Paul Jackson wrote:
From: Paul Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add a new per-cpuset flag called 'sched_load_balance'.
When enabled in a cpuset (the default value) it tells the kernel
scheduler that the scheduler should provide the normal load
balancing on the
801 - 900 of 3926 matches
Mail list logo
