On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:36 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 14:02:59 -0700
> Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:01 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:53:05 -0700
> > > Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Steven,
> > > >
> >
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:36 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 14:02:59 -0700
> Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:01 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:53:05 -0700
> > > Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Steven,
> > > >
> >
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 14:02:59 -0700
Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:01 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:53:05 -0700
> > Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Steven,
> > >
> > > Does the patch look good? Can this be picked up in the next rc?
> > >
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 14:02:59 -0700
Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:01 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:53:05 -0700
> > Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Steven,
> > >
> > > Does the patch look good? Can this be picked up in the next rc?
> > >
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:01 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:53:05 -0700
> Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
>
> > Hi Steven,
> >
> > Does the patch look good? Can this be picked up in the next rc?
> >
>
> Yes it's fine. I can pick it up. Does it need to be marked for stable?
Thanks.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:01 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:53:05 -0700
> Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
>
> > Hi Steven,
> >
> > Does the patch look good? Can this be picked up in the next rc?
> >
>
> Yes it's fine. I can pick it up. Does it need to be marked for stable?
Thanks.
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:53:05 -0700
Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> Does the patch look good? Can this be picked up in the next rc?
>
Yes it's fine. I can pick it up. Does it need to be marked for stable?
Thanks!
-- Steve
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:53:05 -0700
Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> Does the patch look good? Can this be picked up in the next rc?
>
Yes it's fine. I can pick it up. Does it need to be marked for stable?
Thanks!
-- Steve
Hi Steven,
Does the patch look good? Can this be picked up in the next rc?
Vaibhav
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:31 PM Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
>
> When reducing ring buffer size, pages are removed by scheduling a work
> item on each CPU for the corresponding CPU ring buffer. After the pages
> are
Hi Steven,
Does the patch look good? Can this be picked up in the next rc?
Vaibhav
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:31 PM Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
>
> When reducing ring buffer size, pages are removed by scheduling a work
> item on each CPU for the corresponding CPU ring buffer. After the pages
> are
When reducing ring buffer size, pages are removed by scheduling a work
item on each CPU for the corresponding CPU ring buffer. After the pages
are removed from ring buffer linked list, the pages are free()d in a
tight loop. The loop does not give up CPU until all pages are removed.
In a worst case
When reducing ring buffer size, pages are removed by scheduling a work
item on each CPU for the corresponding CPU ring buffer. After the pages
are removed from ring buffer linked list, the pages are free()d in a
tight loop. The loop does not give up CPU until all pages are removed.
In a worst case
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 11:30 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 11:21:31 -0700
> Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
>
> > When reducing ring buffer size, pages are removed by scheduling a work
> > item on each CPU for the corresponding CPU ring buffer. After the pages
> > are removed from
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 11:30 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 11:21:31 -0700
> Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
>
> > When reducing ring buffer size, pages are removed by scheduling a work
> > item on each CPU for the corresponding CPU ring buffer. After the pages
> > are removed from
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 11:21:31 -0700
Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> When reducing ring buffer size, pages are removed by scheduling a work
> item on each CPU for the corresponding CPU ring buffer. After the pages
> are removed from ring buffer linked list, the pages are free()d in a
> tight loop. The
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 11:21:31 -0700
Vaibhav Nagarnaik wrote:
> When reducing ring buffer size, pages are removed by scheduling a work
> item on each CPU for the corresponding CPU ring buffer. After the pages
> are removed from ring buffer linked list, the pages are free()d in a
> tight loop. The
When reducing ring buffer size, pages are removed by scheduling a work
item on each CPU for the corresponding CPU ring buffer. After the pages
are removed from ring buffer linked list, the pages are free()d in a
tight loop. The loop does not give up CPU until all pages are removed.
In a worst case
When reducing ring buffer size, pages are removed by scheduling a work
item on each CPU for the corresponding CPU ring buffer. After the pages
are removed from ring buffer linked list, the pages are free()d in a
tight loop. The loop does not give up CPU until all pages are removed.
In a worst case
18 matches
Mail list logo
