On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 11:41 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 19:57 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > On 05/30/2015 02:03 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > We currently use a full barrier on the sender side to
> > > to avoid receiver tasks disappearing on us while still
> > > perf
On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 19:57 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> On 05/30/2015 02:03 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > We currently use a full barrier on the sender side to
> > to avoid receiver tasks disappearing on us while still
> > performing on the sender side wakeup. We lack however,
> > the proper CP
On 05/30/2015 02:03 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
We currently use a full barrier on the sender side to
to avoid receiver tasks disappearing on us while still
performing on the sender side wakeup. We lack however,
the proper CPU-CPU interactions pairing on the receiver
side which busy-waits for the
We currently use a full barrier on the sender side to
to avoid receiver tasks disappearing on us while still
performing on the sender side wakeup. We lack however,
the proper CPU-CPU interactions pairing on the receiver
side which busy-waits for the message. Similarly, we do
not need a full smp_mb,
4 matches
Mail list logo