On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:29:02PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 01:26 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:29:02PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 12/04/2012 01:26 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
On 12/04/2012 01:26 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for
completeness,
On 12/04/2012 01:26 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for
completeness,
On 12/04/2012 01:26 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for
completeness,
On 12/04/2012 01:26 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for
completeness,
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> >Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
>
> Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for
> completeness, forgive me :))
> In moderate
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for
completeness, forgive me :))
In moderate overcommits, we
On 11/29/2012 05:46 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for
completeness,
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> >Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
>
> Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for
> completeness, forgive me :))
> In moderate
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for
completeness, forgive me :))
In moderate overcommits, we
On 11/29/2012 05:46 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:56AM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for
completeness,
On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for completeness,
forgive me :))
In moderate overcommits, we can falsely exit from ple handler even when
we have preempted task of
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:38:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> From: Raghavendra K T
>
> yield_to returns -ESRCH, When source and target of yield_to
> run queue length is one. When we see three successive failures of
> yield_to
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 03:57:25PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 11/26/2012 07:13 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:38:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >>From: Raghavendra K T
> >>
> >>yield_to returns -ESRCH, When source and target of yield_to
> >>run queue length is
On 11/26/2012 07:13 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:38:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
From: Raghavendra K T
yield_to returns -ESRCH, When source and target of yield_to
run queue length is one. When we see three successive failures of
yield_to we assume we are in
On 11/26/2012 07:13 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:38:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
From: Raghavendra K T raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
yield_to returns -ESRCH, When source and target of yield_to
run queue length is one. When we see three successive failures of
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 03:57:25PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 11/26/2012 07:13 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:38:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
From: Raghavendra K T raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
yield_to returns -ESRCH, When source and target of yield_to
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:38:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
From: Raghavendra K T raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
yield_to returns -ESRCH, When source and target of yield_to
run queue length is one. When we see three
On 11/28/2012 06:42 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Don't understand the reasoning behind why 3 is a good choice.
Here is where I came from. (explaining from scratch for completeness,
forgive me :))
In moderate overcommits, we can falsely exit from ple handler even when
we have preempted task of
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:43:02PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:38:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > From: Raghavendra K T
> >
> > yield_to returns -ESRCH, When source and target of yield_to
> > run queue length is one. When we see three successive failures of
> >
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:38:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> From: Raghavendra K T
>
> yield_to returns -ESRCH, When source and target of yield_to
> run queue length is one. When we see three successive failures of
> yield_to we assume we are in potential undercommit case and abort
> from
From: Raghavendra K T
yield_to returns -ESRCH, When source and target of yield_to
run queue length is one. When we see three successive failures of
yield_to we assume we are in potential undercommit case and abort
from PLE handler.
The assumption is backed by low probability of wrong decision
From: Raghavendra K T raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
yield_to returns -ESRCH, When source and target of yield_to
run queue length is one. When we see three successive failures of
yield_to we assume we are in potential undercommit case and abort
from PLE handler.
The assumption is backed by low
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:38:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
From: Raghavendra K T raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
yield_to returns -ESRCH, When source and target of yield_to
run queue length is one. When we see three successive failures of
yield_to we assume we are in potential
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 02:43:02PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:38:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
From: Raghavendra K T raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
yield_to returns -ESRCH, When source and target of yield_to
run queue length is one. When we see three
26 matches
Mail list logo