On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 11:25 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:19:00PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Ew, looking at the numbers, they may prefer to either a) pretend to not
> > notice, or b) scurry off to HPC'R'US store if a) won't fly ;-)
>
> Yeah, there are a
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 11:25 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:19:00PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Ew, looking at the numbers, they may prefer to either a) pretend to not
notice, or b) scurry off to HPC'R'US store if a) won't fly ;-)
Yeah, there are a lot of
Hello,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:19:00PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Ew, looking at the numbers, they may prefer to either a) pretend to not
> notice, or b) scurry off to HPC'R'US store if a) won't fly ;-)
Yeah, there are a lot of them. The sad part is that only very few of
them would
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 16:55 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 10:11 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:24:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work items queued to a bound workqueue always run
> > > locally. This is a good thing normally,
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 10:11 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:24:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work items queued to a bound workqueue always run
> > locally. This is a good thing normally, but not when the user has
>
> The constant name used there is a
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:24:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work items queued to a bound workqueue always run
> locally. This is a good thing normally, but not when the user has
The constant name used there is a bit misleading but you can't put
work items which are queued
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 16:55 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 10:11 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:24:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work items queued to a bound workqueue always run
locally. This is a good thing normally, but not
Hello,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 05:19:00PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Ew, looking at the numbers, they may prefer to either a) pretend to not
notice, or b) scurry off to HPC'R'US store if a) won't fly ;-)
Yeah, there are a lot of them. The sad part is that only very few of
them would
On Wed, 2015-07-22 at 10:11 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:24:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work items queued to a bound workqueue always run
locally. This is a good thing normally, but not when the user has
The constant name used there is a bit
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:24:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
WORK_CPU_UNBOUND work items queued to a bound workqueue always run
locally. This is a good thing normally, but not when the user has
The constant name used there is a bit misleading but you can't put
work items which are queued w/
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 10:55 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 10:02 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Why do we do nothing about these allegedly unbound work items?
>
> My box seems to think the answer is: no reason other than nobody having
> asked the source to please not do
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 10:55 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 10:02 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Why do we do nothing about these allegedly unbound work items?
My box seems to think the answer is: no reason other than nobody having
asked the source to please not do that.
12 matches
Mail list logo
