Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
checkstack.pl shows these things as the top problems:
0x80266234 smp_call_function_mask [vmlinux]:2736
0x80234747 __build_sched_domains [vmlinux]: 2232
0x8023523f
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
checkstack.pl shows these things as the top problems:
0x80266234 smp_call_function_mask [vmlinux]:2736
0x80234747 __build_sched_domains [vmlinux]: 2232
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Mike Travis wrote:
The need to allow distros to set NR_CPUS=4096 (and NODES_SHIFT=9) is
critical to our upcoming SGI systems using what we have been calling
UV.
That's fine. You can do it. The default kernel will not, because it's
clearly
Dave Jones wrote:
...
But yes, for this to be even remotely feasible, there has to be a negligable
performance cost associated with it, which right now, we clearly don't have.
Given that the number of people running 4096 CPU boxes even in a few years
time
will still be tiny, punishing the
David Miller wrote:
From: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:54:32 +1000
5% is a pretty nasty performance hit... what sort of benchmarks are we
talking about here?
I just made some pretty crazy changes to the VM to get only around 5
or so % performance improvement in
David Miller wrote:
From: Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:47:14 +1000
Yeah, I see. That's stupid isn't it? (Well, I guess it was completely
sane when cpumasks were word sized ;))
Hopefully that accounts for a significant chunk...
There is a lot of indirect costs
Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] (THANKS!!)
Signed-of-by: Mike Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- struct-cpumasks.orig/include/linux/cpumask.h2008-09-25
20:40:59.303546951 -0700
+++ struct-cpumasks/include/linux/cpumask.h 2008-09-25 22:41:00.764472541
-0700
@@ -3,7 +3,8 @@
/*
* Cpumasks
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mike Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Rusty,
I've gotten some good traction on the changes in the following patch.
About 30% of the kernel is compiling right now and I'm picking up
errors and warnings as I'm going along. I think it's doing most of
what we need
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mike Travis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
could you please send whatever .c changes you have already, so that
we can have a look at how the end result will look like? Doesnt have
to build, i'm just curious about how it looks like in practice,
semantically.
I
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Mike Travis wrote:
One pain is:
typedef struct __cpumask_s *cpumask_t;
const cpumask_t xxx;
is not the same as:
typedef const struct __cpumask_s *const_cpumask_t;
const_cpumask_t xxx;
and I'm not exactly sure why.
Umm
Mike Travis wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
Your issue with 'const' is just another version of the same. You don't
want the _pointer_ to be const, you want what it points _to_ to be const.
But because you hid the pointerness inside the typedef, you simply cannot
do that.
The problem
was being
used.
Signed-off-by: Mike Travis tra...@sgi.com
This work_on_cpu is to replace setting current-cpus_allowed when it's
only for one cpu. But it has a call to get_online_cpus() that (I believe)
is just to keep from offlining the cpu the work function is running on.
And it's also
12 matches
Mail list logo
