Hi,
On 13/11/2018 20:36, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:33 AM Igor Stoppa wrote:
I forgot one sentence :-(
On 13/11/2018 20:31, Igor Stoppa wrote:
On 13/11/2018 19:47, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
For general rare-writish stuff, I don't think we want IRQs running
with them
Hi,
On 13/11/2018 20:36, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:33 AM Igor Stoppa wrote:
I forgot one sentence :-(
On 13/11/2018 20:31, Igor Stoppa wrote:
On 13/11/2018 19:47, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
For general rare-writish stuff, I don't think we want IRQs running
with them
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:33 AM Igor Stoppa wrote:
>
> I forgot one sentence :-(
>
> On 13/11/2018 20:31, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> > On 13/11/2018 19:47, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >> For general rare-writish stuff, I don't think we want IRQs running
> >> with them mapped anywhere for write. For
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:33 AM Igor Stoppa wrote:
>
> I forgot one sentence :-(
>
> On 13/11/2018 20:31, Igor Stoppa wrote:
> > On 13/11/2018 19:47, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >> For general rare-writish stuff, I don't think we want IRQs running
> >> with them mapped anywhere for write. For
On 13/11/2018 19:16, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:25 AM Igor Stoppa wrote:
[...]
>> How about having one mm_struct for each writer (core or thread)?
>>
>
> I don't think that helps anything. I think the mm_struct used for
> prmem (or rare_write or whatever you want to
On 13/11/2018 19:16, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 6:25 AM Igor Stoppa wrote:
[...]
>> How about having one mm_struct for each writer (core or thread)?
>>
>
> I don't think that helps anything. I think the mm_struct used for
> prmem (or rare_write or whatever you want to
, Igor Stoppa
> , Dave Hansen , Jonathan
> Corbet , Laura Abbott , Randy Dunlap
> , Mike Rapoport , open
> list:DOCUMENTATION , LKML
> , Thomas Gleixner
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/17] prmem: documentation
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 9:43 AM Nadav Amit wrote:
>>
, Igor Stoppa
> , Dave Hansen , Jonathan
> Corbet , Laura Abbott , Randy Dunlap
> , Mike Rapoport , open
> list:DOCUMENTATION , LKML
> , Thomas Gleixner
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/17] prmem: documentation
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 9:43 AM Nadav Amit wrote:
>>
On 01/11/2018 01:19, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
ISTM you don't need that atomic operation -- you could take a spinlock
and then just add one directly to the variable.
It was my intention to provide a 1:1 conversion of existing code, as it
should be easier to verify the correctness of the
On 01/11/2018 01:19, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
ISTM you don't need that atomic operation -- you could take a spinlock
and then just add one directly to the variable.
It was my intention to provide a 1:1 conversion of existing code, as it
should be easier to verify the correctness of the
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:10 PM Igor Stoppa wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/11/2018 00:57, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:00 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I _think_ the use-case for atomics is updating the reference counts of
> >> objects that are in this write-rare
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:10 PM Igor Stoppa wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01/11/2018 00:57, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:00 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I _think_ the use-case for atomics is updating the reference counts of
> >> objects that are in this write-rare
On 30/10/2018 23:02, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Oct 30, 2018, at 1:43 PM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
There is no need to process each of these tens of thousands allocations and
initialization as write-rare.
Would it be possible to do the same here?
I don’t see why not, although getting the
On 30/10/2018 23:02, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Oct 30, 2018, at 1:43 PM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
There is no need to process each of these tens of thousands allocations and
initialization as write-rare.
Would it be possible to do the same here?
I don’t see why not, although getting the
Am 26.10.18 um 11:26 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
>> Jon,
>>
>> So the below document is a prime example for why I think RST sucks. As a
>> text document readability is greatly diminished by all the markup
>> nonsense.
>>
>> This stuff should not become write-only content like html and other
>> gunk.
Am 26.10.18 um 11:26 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
>> Jon,
>>
>> So the below document is a prime example for why I think RST sucks. As a
>> text document readability is greatly diminished by all the markup
>> nonsense.
>>
>> This stuff should not become write-only content like html and other
>> gunk.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:26:09AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Jon,
>
> So the below document is a prime example for why I think RST sucks. As a
> text document readability is greatly diminished by all the markup
> nonsense.
>
> This stuff should not become write-only content like html and
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:26:09AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Jon,
>
> So the below document is a prime example for why I think RST sucks. As a
> text document readability is greatly diminished by all the markup
> nonsense.
>
> This stuff should not become write-only content like html and
18 matches
Mail list logo
