Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 02:14:23PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
Yeah probably something around that order of magnitude. I suspect
there will fast be a point where either you'll get other timers
going off more frequently, and / or you simply get very quickly
diminishing return
Blaisorblade wrote:
Hmm, no, that's not what SKAS allows. It simply allows to switch to *another*
address space. Yes, you can make arbitrary mmaps, so to replicate the
original address space and add some other maps, that you access even through
%fs if you want.
But that's nothing special to SKA
On Saturday 07 May 2005 22:31, Ian Rogers wrote:
> Jeff Dike wrote:
> > Just one little point that would seem to indicate a lack of
> > understanding.
> >
> >You seem to be interested in manipulating many address spaces, but you
> >have a global mm_fd which you open ones, and on which all operation
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:31:00PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I think the best way is to let other CPUs handle the load balancing
> for idle CPUs. Basically when a CPU goes fully idle then you mark
> this in some global data structure,
nohz_cpu_mask already exists for this purpose.
> and CPUs do
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:44:14PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > But it has to be *really* lightweight because these transistion can
> > happen a lot (consider a CPU that very often goes to sleep for a short time)
>
> lightweight is good of course. But even if it's medium weight.. it just
> But it has to be *really* lightweight because these transistion can
> happen a lot (consider a CPU that very often goes to sleep for a short time)
lightweight is good of course. But even if it's medium weight.. it just
means you need to be REALLY idle (eg for longer time) for it to trigger.
I g
Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 13:50 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> My preference would be the second: fix the scheduler so it doesn't rely
>> on regular polling. However, as long as the UP case runs with no timer
>> interrupts when idle, many people will be
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
> I need some inputs from the community (specifically from virtual
> machine and embedded/power-management folks) on something that I am working
> on.
I think the best way is to let other CPUs handle the load balancing
for idle CPUs.
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 02:14:23PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Yeah probably something around that order of magnitude. I suspect
> there will fast be a point where either you'll get other timers
> going off more frequently, and / or you simply get very quickly
> diminishing returns on the amount of
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49277
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 13:50 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> My preference would be the second: fix the scheduler so it doesn't rely
> on regular polling. However, as long as the UP case runs with no timer
> interrupts when idle, many people will be happy (eg. most embedded).
alternatively; if a CPU
11 matches
Mail list logo
