On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 21:15 +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Maybe fix up all the other myriads of sysctl entries which use a rather
> non-precise generic sizeof(int) as well?
> Or doesn't that make sense?
No, it does make sense
> Maybe this is because it's security relevant and you'd better make
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 01:19:07PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Ingo,
>
> I wasn't able to turn on latency tracing on a x86_64 box. Using logdev
> to see what was happening, I found that echoing 0
> into /proc/sys/kernel/preempt_max_latency would only change the max from
> -1ULL to
* Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo,
>
> I wasn't able to turn on latency tracing on a x86_64 box. Using logdev
> to see what was happening, I found that echoing 0 into
> /proc/sys/kernel/preempt_max_latency would only change the max from
> -1ULL to 0x. Which
Ingo,
I wasn't able to turn on latency tracing on a x86_64 box. Using logdev
to see what was happening, I found that echoing 0
into /proc/sys/kernel/preempt_max_latency would only change the max from
-1ULL to 0x. Which would keep the max pretty high still.
The problem is in
Ingo,
I wasn't able to turn on latency tracing on a x86_64 box. Using logdev
to see what was happening, I found that echoing 0
into /proc/sys/kernel/preempt_max_latency would only change the max from
-1ULL to 0x. Which would keep the max pretty high still.
The problem is in
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 01:19:07PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Ingo,
I wasn't able to turn on latency tracing on a x86_64 box. Using logdev
to see what was happening, I found that echoing 0
into /proc/sys/kernel/preempt_max_latency would only change the max from
-1ULL to
* Steven Rostedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo,
I wasn't able to turn on latency tracing on a x86_64 box. Using logdev
to see what was happening, I found that echoing 0 into
/proc/sys/kernel/preempt_max_latency would only change the max from
-1ULL to 0x. Which would
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 21:15 +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
Maybe fix up all the other myriads of sysctl entries which use a rather
non-precise generic sizeof(int) as well?
Or doesn't that make sense?
No, it does make sense
Maybe this is because it's security relevant and you'd better make sure
8 matches
Mail list logo