Hi Thomas,
Any comments on this patch?
Regards
Preeti U Murthy
On 04/01/2014 11:02 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 03/28/2014 02:17 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 03/27/2014 03:44 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>>> On 03/27/2014 11:58 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Actually, my suggestion
Hi Thomas,
Any comments on this patch?
Regards
Preeti U Murthy
On 04/01/2014 11:02 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 03/28/2014 02:17 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 03/27/2014 03:44 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 03/27/2014 11:58 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Actually, my suggestion was to remove
On 03/28/2014 02:17 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 03/27/2014 03:44 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> On 03/27/2014 11:58 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, my suggestion was to remove the dying CPU from the force_mask
>>> alone,
>>> in the CPU_DYING notifier. The rest of the cleanup
On 03/28/2014 02:17 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 03/27/2014 03:44 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 03/27/2014 11:58 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Actually, my suggestion was to remove the dying CPU from the force_mask
alone,
in the CPU_DYING notifier. The rest of the cleanup (removing it from
On 03/27/2014 03:44 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 03/27/2014 11:58 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>
>> Actually, my suggestion was to remove the dying CPU from the force_mask
>> alone,
>> in the CPU_DYING notifier. The rest of the cleanup (removing it from the
>> other
>> masks, moving the
On 03/27/2014 03:44 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 03/27/2014 11:58 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Actually, my suggestion was to remove the dying CPU from the force_mask
alone,
in the CPU_DYING notifier. The rest of the cleanup (removing it from the
other
masks, moving the broadcast duty to
On 03/27/2014 11:58 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> Actually, my suggestion was to remove the dying CPU from the force_mask alone,
> in the CPU_DYING notifier. The rest of the cleanup (removing it from the other
> masks, moving the broadcast duty to someone else etc can still be done at
> the
On 03/27/2014 08:32 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 03/26/2014 04:51 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 03/26/2014 09:26 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>>> Its possible that the tick_broadcast_force_mask contains cpus which are not
>>> in cpu_online_mask when a broadcast tick occurs. This could happen
On 03/27/2014 08:32 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 03/26/2014 04:51 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 03/26/2014 09:26 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
Its possible that the tick_broadcast_force_mask contains cpus which are not
in cpu_online_mask when a broadcast tick occurs. This could happen under the
On 03/27/2014 11:58 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Actually, my suggestion was to remove the dying CPU from the force_mask alone,
in the CPU_DYING notifier. The rest of the cleanup (removing it from the other
masks, moving the broadcast duty to someone else etc can still be done at
the CPU_DEAD
On 03/26/2014 04:51 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 03/26/2014 09:26 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> Its possible that the tick_broadcast_force_mask contains cpus which are not
>> in cpu_online_mask when a broadcast tick occurs. This could happen under the
>> following circumstance assuming CPU1 is
On 03/26/2014 04:51 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 03/26/2014 09:26 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> Its possible that the tick_broadcast_force_mask contains cpus which are not
>> in cpu_online_mask when a broadcast tick occurs. This could happen under the
>> following circumstance assuming CPU1 is
On 03/26/2014 09:26 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Its possible that the tick_broadcast_force_mask contains cpus which are not
> in cpu_online_mask when a broadcast tick occurs. This could happen under the
> following circumstance assuming CPU1 is among the CPUs waiting for broadcast.
>
> CPU0
On 03/26/2014 09:26 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
Its possible that the tick_broadcast_force_mask contains cpus which are not
in cpu_online_mask when a broadcast tick occurs. This could happen under the
following circumstance assuming CPU1 is among the CPUs waiting for broadcast.
CPU0
On 03/26/2014 04:51 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 03/26/2014 09:26 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
Its possible that the tick_broadcast_force_mask contains cpus which are not
in cpu_online_mask when a broadcast tick occurs. This could happen under the
following circumstance assuming CPU1 is among
On 03/26/2014 04:51 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 03/26/2014 09:26 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
Its possible that the tick_broadcast_force_mask contains cpus which are not
in cpu_online_mask when a broadcast tick occurs. This could happen under the
following circumstance assuming CPU1 is among
Its possible that the tick_broadcast_force_mask contains cpus which are not
in cpu_online_mask when a broadcast tick occurs. This could happen under the
following circumstance assuming CPU1 is among the CPUs waiting for broadcast.
CPU0CPU1
Run CPU_DOWN_PREPARE
Its possible that the tick_broadcast_force_mask contains cpus which are not
in cpu_online_mask when a broadcast tick occurs. This could happen under the
following circumstance assuming CPU1 is among the CPUs waiting for broadcast.
CPU0CPU1
Run CPU_DOWN_PREPARE
18 matches
Mail list logo
