On 10/11/10 17:47, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 11/10/2010 11:22 AM, Ian Molton wrote:
>> Ping ?
>
> I think the best way forward is to post patches.
I posted links to the git trees. I can post patches, but they are
*large*. Do you really want me to post them?
> To summarize what I was trying to
On 11/12/2010 06:14 AM, Ian Molton wrote:
> On 10/11/10 17:47, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> On 11/10/2010 11:22 AM, Ian Molton wrote:
>>> Ping ?
>>
>> I think the best way forward is to post patches.
>
> I posted links to the git trees. I can post patches, but they are
> *large*. Do you really want m
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 10:59:45AM -0400, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Make the bulk of __ticket_spin_lock look identical for large and small
> number of cpus.
[snip]
> #if (NR_CPUS < 256)
> static __always_inline void __ticket_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
> {
> - register union {
> -
On 11/12/2010 04:19 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 10:59:45AM -0400, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> Make the bulk of __ticket_spin_lock look identical for large and small
>> number of cpus.
> [snip]
>
>> #if (NR_CPUS < 256)
>> static __always_inline void __ticket_spin_lock
>>> On 11/11/2010 at 3:49 PM, in message <2010124904.24010...@nehalam>,
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:03:10 -0700
> "Ky Srinivasan" wrote:
>
>> +static char *kvp_keys[KVP_MAX_KEY] = {"FullyQualifiedDomainName",
>> +"IntegrationServicesVersi
>>> On 11/11/2010 at 3:49 PM, in message <2010124904.24010...@nehalam>,
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:03:10 -0700
> "Ky Srinivasan" wrote:
>
>> +static char *kvp_keys[KVP_MAX_KEY] = {"FullyQualifiedDomainName",
>> +"IntegrationServicesVersi
>>> On 11/11/2010 at 3:49 PM, in message <2010124904.24010...@nehalam>,
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:03:10 -0700
> "Ky Srinivasan" wrote:
>
>> +static char *kvp_keys[KVP_MAX_KEY] = {"FullyQualifiedDomainName",
>> +"IntegrationServicesVersi
At last weeks' LPC, there was some interest in my patches for Auto/Lazy
Migration to improve locality and possibly performance of unpinned guest
VMs on a NUMA platform. As a result of these conversations I have reposted
the patches [4 series, ~40 patches] as RFCs to the linux-numa list. Links
to
>>> On 11/11/2010 at 4:15 PM, in message <2010211548.ga31...@kroah.com>,
>>> Greg
KH wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:03:10PM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * An implementation of key value pair (KVP) functionality for Linux.
>> + *
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2010, Novell, In
>>> On 11/11/2010 at 4:19 PM, in message <2010211904.gb31...@kroah.com>,
>>> Greg
KH wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:03:10PM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Array of keys we support in Linux.
>
> Not really, you can support "any" number of keys as the kernel shouldn't
> car
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:06:18AM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
> >> +typedef struct kvp_msg {
> >> + __u32 kvp_key; /* Key */
> >> + __u8 kvp_value[0]; /* Corresponding value */
> >> +} kvp_msg_t;
> >
> > I thought that kvp_value was really KVP_VALUE_SIZE?
>
> kvp_value is typed information an
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:29:58AM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
>
>
> >>> On 11/11/2010 at 4:19 PM, in message <2010211904.gb31...@kroah.com>,
> >>> Greg
> KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:03:10PM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
> >> +/*
> >> + * Array of keys we support in Linux.
> >
>>> On 11/12/2010 at 1:47 PM, in message <20101112184753.ga20...@kroah.com>,
>>> Greg
KH wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:06:18AM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
>> >> +typedef struct kvp_msg {
>> >> + __u32 kvp_key; /* Key */
>> >> + __u8 kvp_value[0]; /* Corresponding value */
>> >> +} kvp_
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 01:59:42PM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
>
>
> >>> On 11/12/2010 at 1:47 PM, in message <20101112184753.ga20...@kroah.com>,
> >>> Greg
> KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:06:18AM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
> >> >> +typedef struct kvp_msg {
> >> >> + __u32 k
On 11/03/2010 07:59 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
> - with an unmodified struct spinlock, it can check to see if
> head == tail after unlock; if not, then there's someone else
> trying to lock, and we can do a kick. Unfortunately this
> generates very high level o
On 11/12/2010 02:12 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/03/2010 07:59 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> - with an unmodified struct spinlock, it can check to see if
>> head == tail after unlock; if not, then there's someone else
>> trying to lock, and we can do a kick. Unfortun
On 11/12/2010 02:17 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 11/12/2010 02:12 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 11/03/2010 07:59 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> - with an unmodified struct spinlock, it can check to see if
>>> head == tail after unlock; if not, then there's someone else
>>
17 matches
Mail list logo
