On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:09:20PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
> On 04/15/2013 07:43 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:43:07PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Really? If prev is NULL in context_switch(...), the scheduler will
> > > implode,
> > > and I
Hi Catalin,
On 04/15/2013 07:43 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
> > > > For accurate
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
> > > For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev
> > > task pointer, since
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
> > For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev
> > task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the
> > the stack pointer.
>
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
> For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev
> task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the
> the stack pointer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington
> ---
>
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev
task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the
the stack pointer.
Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington c...@codeaurora.org
---
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev
task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the
the stack pointer.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev
task pointer, since
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
For accurate accounting
Hi Catalin,
On 04/15/2013 07:43 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100,
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:43:07PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
Really? If prev is NULL in context_switch(...), the scheduler will
implode,
and I can't see
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:09:20PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
On 04/15/2013 07:43 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:58:40AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:11:59AM +0100,
Hi Will,
On 04/10/2013 07:41 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev
>> task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the
>> the stack pointer.
>>
>>
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
> For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev
> task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the
> the stack pointer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington
Thanks Christopher -- I assume
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev
task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the
the stack pointer.
Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington c...@codeaurora.org
Thanks
Hi Will,
On 04/10/2013 07:41 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:33:34PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev
task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the
the stack pointer.
Signed-off-by:
For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev
task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the
the stack pointer.
Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington
---
arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git
For accurate accounting pass contextidr_thread_switch the prev
task pointer, since cpu_switch_to has at that point changed the
the stack pointer.
Signed-off-by: Christopher Covington c...@codeaurora.org
---
arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff
20 matches
Mail list logo