On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 02:17:25PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> > That's a ridiculous nak.
> >
> > The fact that this patch series doesn't solve your particular problem
> > is not a technical argument to *reject* somebody else's work to solve
> >
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> That's a ridiculous nak.
>
> The fact that this patch series doesn't solve your particular problem
> is not a technical argument to *reject* somebody else's work to solve
> a different problem. It's not a regression when behavior is completely
>
On 09/21/2017 04:50 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 04:29:01PM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
>> In this specific portion of the write memory barriers description,
>> the documentation mentions sequential order of stores, which is
>> confusing since sequential ordering is
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 04:29:01PM -0300, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> In this specific portion of the write memory barriers description,
> the documentation mentions sequential order of stores, which is
> confusing since sequential ordering is not guaranteed.
>
> This patch tries to improve the
In this specific portion of the write memory barriers description,
the documentation mentions sequential order of stores, which is
confusing since sequential ordering is not guaranteed.
This patch tries to improve the doc in order to avoid any
mis-understanding.
Cc: Paul E. McKenney
In this specific portion of the write memory barriers description,
the documentation mentions sequential order of stores, which is
confusing since sequential ordering is not guaranteed.
This patch tries to improve the doc in order to avoid any
mis-understanding.
Signed-off-by: Guilherme G.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 01:44:39PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> > This patchset makes the OOM killer cgroup-aware.
> >
> > v8:
> > - Do not kill tasks with OOM_SCORE_ADJ -1000
> > - Make the whole thing opt-in with cgroup mount option control
> Jon,
>
> While documenting some DVB demux headers, I noticed the above bug.
>
> scripts/kernel-doc | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/kernel-doc b/scripts/kernel-doc
> index 9d3eafea58f0..15f934a23d1d 100755
> --- a/scripts/kernel-doc
> +++
Hi Mark/Will,
Appreciate any comments from you.
Thanks,
Shaokun
On 2017/8/22 16:07, Shaokun Zhang wrote:
> This patchset adds support for HiSilicon SoC uncore PMUs driver. It
> includes L3C, Hydra Home Agent (HHA) and DDRC.
>
> Changes in v5:
> * remove unnecessary name/num_events member in
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > As said in other email. We can make priorities hierarchical (in the same
> > sense as hard limit or others) so that children cannot override their
> > parent.
>
> You mean they can set the knob to any value, but parent's value is enforced,
> if it's
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > It's actually much more complex because in our environment we'd need an
> > "activity manager" with CAP_SYS_RESOURCE to control oom priorities of user
> > subcontainers when today it need only be concerned with top-level memory
> > cgroups. Users
11 matches
Mail list logo
