On 6 November 2020 16:32:00 GMT, Alex Williamson
wrote:
>On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 11:17:21 +0100
>Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> On 04/11/20 10:35, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2020-10-28 at 15:35 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 02:39:43PM +, David Woodhouse
On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 11:17:21 +0100
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 04/11/20 10:35, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-10-28 at 15:35 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 02:39:43PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >>> From: David Woodhouse
> >>>
> >>> This allows an
On 04/11/20 10:35, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2020-10-28 at 15:35 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 02:39:43PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
From: David Woodhouse
This allows an exclusive wait_queue_entry to be added at the head of the
queue, instead of the tail as
On 04/11/20 10:35, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2020-10-28 at 15:35 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 02:39:43PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
From: David Woodhouse
This allows an exclusive wait_queue_entry to be added at the head of the
queue, instead of the tail as
On Wed, 2020-10-28 at 15:35 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 02:39:43PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > From: David Woodhouse
> >
> > This allows an exclusive wait_queue_entry to be added at the head of the
> > queue, instead of the tail as normal. Thus, it gets to
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 09:32:11PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-10-27 at 21:30 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 07:27:59PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > > > While looking at this I found that weird __add_wait_queue_exclusive()
> > > > which is used
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 02:39:43PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> From: David Woodhouse
>
> This allows an exclusive wait_queue_entry to be added at the head of the
> queue, instead of the tail as normal. Thus, it gets to consume events
> first without allowing non-exclusive waiters to be woken
On 28/10/20 15:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Shall I take the waitqueue thing and stick it in a topic branch for
> Paolo so he can then merge that and the kvm bits on top into the KVM
> tree?
Topic branches are always the best solution. :)
Paolo
On Tue, 2020-10-27 at 21:30 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 07:27:59PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> > > While looking at this I found that weird __add_wait_queue_exclusive()
> > > which is used by fs/eventpoll.c and does something similar, except it
> > > doesn't keep
On Tue, 2020-10-27 at 21:30 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 07:27:59PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> > > While looking at this I found that weird __add_wait_queue_exclusive()
> > > which is used by fs/eventpoll.c and does something similar, except it
> > > doesn't keep
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 07:27:59PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > While looking at this I found that weird __add_wait_queue_exclusive()
> > which is used by fs/eventpoll.c and does something similar, except it
> > doesn't keep the FIFO order.
>
> It does, doesn't it? Except those so-called
On Tue, 2020-10-27 at 20:09 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 02:39:43PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > From: David Woodhouse
> >
> > This allows an exclusive wait_queue_entry to be added at the head of the
> > queue, instead of the tail as normal. Thus, it gets to
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 02:39:43PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> From: David Woodhouse
>
> This allows an exclusive wait_queue_entry to be added at the head of the
> queue, instead of the tail as normal. Thus, it gets to consume events
> first without allowing non-exclusive waiters to be woken
From: David Woodhouse
This allows an exclusive wait_queue_entry to be added at the head of the
queue, instead of the tail as normal. Thus, it gets to consume events
first without allowing non-exclusive waiters to be woken at all.
The (first) intended use is for KVM IRQFD, which currently has
14 matches
Mail list logo
