Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH]Add notification for active Cell SPU tasks

2006-12-12 Thread Maynard Johnson
Luke Browning wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/12/2006 01:04:30 PM: > Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > >On Wednesday 06 December 2006 23:04, Maynard Johnson wrote: > > > >No code should ever need to look at other SPUs when performing an > >operation on a given SPU, so we don't need to hold

Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH]Add notification for active Cell SPU tasks

2006-12-08 Thread Maynard Johnson
Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Wednesday 06 December 2006 23:04, Maynard Johnson wrote: text(struct spu *spu, struct spu_context *ctx) Is this really the right strategy? First, it serializes all spu context switching at the node level. Second, it performs 17 callou

Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH]Add notification for active Cell SPU tasks

2006-12-07 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 23:04, Maynard Johnson wrote: > text(struct spu *spu, struct > > spu_context *ctx) > > > > > > Is this really the right strategy?  First, it serializes all spu > > context > > > switching at the node level.  Second, it performs 17 callouts for > > > I could be wrong,

Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH]Add notification for active Cell SPU tasks

2006-12-04 Thread Maynard Johnson
Arnd Bergmann wrote: On Friday 01 December 2006 21:01, Maynard Johnson wrote: +static void notify_spus_active(void) +{ + int node; + for (node = 0; node < MAX_NUMNODES; node++) { + struct spu *spu; + mutex_lock(&spu_prio->active_mutex[node]); +

Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH]Add notification for active Cell SPU tasks

2006-12-02 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Friday 01 December 2006 21:01, Maynard Johnson wrote: > +static void notify_spus_active(void) > +{ > + int node; > + for (node = 0; node < MAX_NUMNODES; node++) { > + struct spu *spu; > + mutex_lock(&spu_prio->active_mutex[node]); > + list_fo