David Miller wrote:
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:52:30 -0800
Why doesn't the traditional hash table of locks work here? Use the
cache-line address as input to the hash function, take the corresponding
lock, do the compare-and-exchange by hand, and
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:52:30 -0800
> Why doesn't the traditional hash table of locks work here? Use the
> cache-line address as input to the hash function, take the corresponding
> lock, do the compare-and-exchange by hand, and then release the
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 10:37:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:27:47 +0100
>
> >
> > * Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I got the following running stock 2.6.20-rt8 on an 4-CPU 1.8GHz
> > > Opteron box.
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 07:27:47AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I got the following running stock 2.6.20-rt8 on an 4-CPU 1.8GHz
> > Opteron box. The machine continued to run a few rounds of kernbench
> > and LTP. Looks a bit scary -- a
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 07:27:47AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Paul E. McKenney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got the following running stock 2.6.20-rt8 on an 4-CPU 1.8GHz
Opteron box. The machine continued to run a few rounds of kernbench
and LTP. Looks a bit scary -- a tasklet was
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 10:37:44PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:27:47 +0100
* Paul E. McKenney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got the following running stock 2.6.20-rt8 on an 4-CPU 1.8GHz
Opteron box. The machine continued
From: Paul E. McKenney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:52:30 -0800
Why doesn't the traditional hash table of locks work here? Use the
cache-line address as input to the hash function, take the corresponding
lock, do the compare-and-exchange by hand, and then release the lock.
David Miller wrote:
From: Paul E. McKenney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:52:30 -0800
Why doesn't the traditional hash table of locks work here? Use the
cache-line address as input to the hash function, take the corresponding
lock, do the compare-and-exchange by hand, and then
From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:27:47 +0100
>
> * Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I got the following running stock 2.6.20-rt8 on an 4-CPU 1.8GHz
> > Opteron box. The machine continued to run a few rounds of kernbench
> > and LTP. Looks a bit
* Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got the following running stock 2.6.20-rt8 on an 4-CPU 1.8GHz
> Opteron box. The machine continued to run a few rounds of kernbench
> and LTP. Looks a bit scary -- a tasklet was "stolen" from
> __tasklet_action().
>
> Thoughts? In the
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 09:02:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I got the following running stock 2.6.20-rt8 on an 4-CPU 1.8GHz Opteron
> box. The machine continued to run a few rounds of kernbench and LTP.
> Looks a bit scary -- a tasklet was "stolen" from __tasklet_action().
>
Hello!
I got the following running stock 2.6.20-rt8 on an 4-CPU 1.8GHz Opteron
box. The machine continued to run a few rounds of kernbench and LTP.
Looks a bit scary -- a tasklet was "stolen" from __tasklet_action().
Thoughts? In the meantime, kicking it off again to see if it repeats.
Hello!
I got the following running stock 2.6.20-rt8 on an 4-CPU 1.8GHz Opteron
box. The machine continued to run a few rounds of kernbench and LTP.
Looks a bit scary -- a tasklet was stolen from __tasklet_action().
Thoughts? In the meantime, kicking it off again to see if it repeats.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 09:02:12PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Hello!
I got the following running stock 2.6.20-rt8 on an 4-CPU 1.8GHz Opteron
box. The machine continued to run a few rounds of kernbench and LTP.
Looks a bit scary -- a tasklet was stolen from __tasklet_action().
* Paul E. McKenney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got the following running stock 2.6.20-rt8 on an 4-CPU 1.8GHz
Opteron box. The machine continued to run a few rounds of kernbench
and LTP. Looks a bit scary -- a tasklet was stolen from
__tasklet_action().
Thoughts? In the meantime,
From: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 07:27:47 +0100
* Paul E. McKenney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got the following running stock 2.6.20-rt8 on an 4-CPU 1.8GHz
Opteron box. The machine continued to run a few rounds of kernbench
and LTP. Looks a bit scary -- a
16 matches
Mail list logo