On Thu 07-11-13 18:31:42, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 00:01:11 +0100
> Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > On Thu 07-11-13 23:54:10, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > > So if the current CPU can handle it, what is the problem?
> > I hope this gets cleared out in my other email. But to make
On Thu 07-11-13 18:31:42, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 00:01:11 +0100
Jan Kara j...@suse.cz wrote:
On Thu 07-11-13 23:54:10, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
So if the current CPU can handle it, what is the problem?
I hope this gets cleared out in my other email. But to make
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 00:01:11 +0100
Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 07-11-13 23:54:10, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > So if the current CPU can handle it, what is the problem?
> I hope this gets cleared out in my other email. But to make sure: If
> other CPUs are idle (i.e. not appending to the printk
On Thu 07-11-13 23:54:10, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:50:34PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 07-11-13 23:23:14, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:19:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Thu 07-11-13 23:13:39, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:50:34PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 07-11-13 23:23:14, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:19:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Thu 07-11-13 23:13:39, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > But then, who's going to process that work if every CPUs
On Thu 07-11-13 23:23:14, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:19:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 07-11-13 23:13:39, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > But then, who's going to process that work if every CPUs is idle?
> > Have a look into irq_work_queue(). There is:
> >
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:19:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 07-11-13 23:13:39, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > But then, who's going to process that work if every CPUs is idle?
> Have a look into irq_work_queue(). There is:
> /*
> * If the work is not "lazy" or the tick is
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:19:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 07-11-13 23:13:39, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > But then, who's going to process that work if every CPUs is idle?
> Have a look into irq_work_queue(). There is:
> /*
> * If the work is not "lazy" or the tick is
On Thu 07-11-13 23:13:39, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2013/11/7 Jan Kara :
> > Provide new irq work flag - IRQ_WORK_UNBOUND - meaning that can be
> > processed on any cpu. This flag implies IRQ_WORK_LAZY so that things are
> > simple and we don't have to pick any particular cpu to do the work. We
2013/11/7 Jan Kara :
> Provide new irq work flag - IRQ_WORK_UNBOUND - meaning that can be
> processed on any cpu. This flag implies IRQ_WORK_LAZY so that things are
> simple and we don't have to pick any particular cpu to do the work. We
> just do the work from a timer tick on whichever cpu it
Provide new irq work flag - IRQ_WORK_UNBOUND - meaning that can be
processed on any cpu. This flag implies IRQ_WORK_LAZY so that things are
simple and we don't have to pick any particular cpu to do the work. We
just do the work from a timer tick on whichever cpu it happens first.
This is useful as
Provide new irq work flag - IRQ_WORK_UNBOUND - meaning that can be
processed on any cpu. This flag implies IRQ_WORK_LAZY so that things are
simple and we don't have to pick any particular cpu to do the work. We
just do the work from a timer tick on whichever cpu it happens first.
This is useful as
2013/11/7 Jan Kara j...@suse.cz:
Provide new irq work flag - IRQ_WORK_UNBOUND - meaning that can be
processed on any cpu. This flag implies IRQ_WORK_LAZY so that things are
simple and we don't have to pick any particular cpu to do the work. We
just do the work from a timer tick on whichever
On Thu 07-11-13 23:13:39, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
2013/11/7 Jan Kara j...@suse.cz:
Provide new irq work flag - IRQ_WORK_UNBOUND - meaning that can be
processed on any cpu. This flag implies IRQ_WORK_LAZY so that things are
simple and we don't have to pick any particular cpu to do the
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:19:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 07-11-13 23:13:39, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
But then, who's going to process that work if every CPUs is idle?
Have a look into irq_work_queue(). There is:
/*
* If the work is not lazy or the tick is
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:19:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 07-11-13 23:13:39, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
But then, who's going to process that work if every CPUs is idle?
Have a look into irq_work_queue(). There is:
/*
* If the work is not lazy or the tick is
On Thu 07-11-13 23:23:14, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:19:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 07-11-13 23:13:39, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
But then, who's going to process that work if every CPUs is idle?
Have a look into irq_work_queue(). There is:
/*
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:50:34PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 07-11-13 23:23:14, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:19:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 07-11-13 23:13:39, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
But then, who's going to process that work if every CPUs is idle?
On Thu 07-11-13 23:54:10, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:50:34PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 07-11-13 23:23:14, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:19:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 07-11-13 23:13:39, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
But
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 00:01:11 +0100
Jan Kara j...@suse.cz wrote:
On Thu 07-11-13 23:54:10, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
So if the current CPU can handle it, what is the problem?
I hope this gets cleared out in my other email. But to make sure: If
other CPUs are idle (i.e. not appending to the
On Wed 21-08-13 14:49:12, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:08:30 +0200
> Jan Kara wrote:
>
>
> > struct irq_work {
> > unsigned long flags;
> > diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b/kernel/irq_work.c
> > index 55fcce6..446cd81 100644
> > --- a/kernel/irq_work.c
> > +++
On Wed 21-08-13 14:49:12, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:08:30 +0200
Jan Kara j...@suse.cz wrote:
struct irq_work {
unsigned long flags;
diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b/kernel/irq_work.c
index 55fcce6..446cd81 100644
--- a/kernel/irq_work.c
+++
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:08:30 +0200
Jan Kara wrote:
> struct irq_work {
> unsigned long flags;
> diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b/kernel/irq_work.c
> index 55fcce6..446cd81 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq_work.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq_work.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,9 @@
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct
Provide new irq work flag - IRQ_WORK_UNBOUND - meaning that can be
processed on any cpu. This flag implies IRQ_WORK_LAZY so that things are
simple and we don't have to pick any particular cpu to do the work. We
just do the work from a timer tick on whichever cpu it happens first.
This is useful as
Provide new irq work flag - IRQ_WORK_UNBOUND - meaning that can be
processed on any cpu. This flag implies IRQ_WORK_LAZY so that things are
simple and we don't have to pick any particular cpu to do the work. We
just do the work from a timer tick on whichever cpu it happens first.
This is useful as
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:08:30 +0200
Jan Kara j...@suse.cz wrote:
struct irq_work {
unsigned long flags;
diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b/kernel/irq_work.c
index 55fcce6..446cd81 100644
--- a/kernel/irq_work.c
+++ b/kernel/irq_work.c
@@ -22,6 +22,9 @@
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct
Provide new irq work flag - IRQ_WORK_UNBOUND - meaning that can be
processed on any cpu. This flag implies IRQ_WORK_LAZY so that things are
simple and we don't have to pick any particular cpu to do the work. We
just do the work from a timer tick on whichever cpu it happens first.
This is useful as
Provide new irq work flag - IRQ_WORK_UNBOUND - meaning that can be
processed on any cpu. This flag implies IRQ_WORK_LAZY so that things are
simple and we don't have to pick any particular cpu to do the work. We
just do the work from a timer tick on whichever cpu it happens first.
This is useful as
28 matches
Mail list logo
