On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 09:46:52PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> FWIW, here is my semantic patch and the output - it reports on things that
> appear to be too small and things that it doesn't know about.
>
> What are the relevant pci wrappers? I didn't find them.
Basically all of the functions
On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:42:21AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:14:56PM +, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > Do we have a list of users for x86 with a small DMA mask?
> > > Or, given that I'm not aware of a tool
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 07:24:18AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Johannes,
>
> can you take a look at this? You are one of the few persons who cared
> about SMP passthrough in the recent past.
I'm sitting at the airport currently, but as soon as I'm back in the office
I'll have a look.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:42:21AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:14:56PM +, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > Do we have a list of users for x86 with a small DMA mask?
> > Or, given that I'm not aware of a tool to be able to look
> > for this in an easy way, would it
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 09:39:47AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/27/18 9:31 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 14:57 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> This patches removes the expensive atomic opeation on host-wide counter
> >> of .host_busy for scsi-mq, and it is observed that IOPS
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:14:56PM +, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> But curious, on a standard qemu x86_x64 KVM guest, which of the
> drivers do we know for certain *are* being used from the ones
> listed?
On a KVM guest probably none. But not all the world is relatively
sane and standardized
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:36:23AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> > Some devices have incredibly bogus hardware like 28 bit addressing
> > or 39 bit addressing. We don't have a good way to allocate memory by
> > physical address other than than
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:07:07AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> Well it looks like what we are using it for is to force allocation from
> low physical memory if we fail to obtain proper memory through a normal
> channel. The use of ZONE_DMA is only there for emergency purposes.
> I think
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 09:18:43AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 09:54:06PM +, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > In practice if you don't have a floppy device on x86, you don't need
> > > ZONE_DMA,
> >
> > I call BS on that, and you actually explain later why it it BS
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 04:16:48PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 14:57 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > +struct scsi_host_mq_in_flight {
> > + int cnt;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static void scsi_host_check_in_flight(struct request *rq, void *data,
> > + bool reserved)
> > +{
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 03:51:46PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-04-20 at 14:57 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > show_host_busy(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char
> > *buf)
> > {
> > struct Scsi_Host *shost = class_to_shost(dev);
> > - return snprintf(buf,
11 matches
Mail list logo
