On 01/29/2015 03:01 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 03:32:58PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> Thomas ping. Would you be posting this patch?
>
> FYI, Thomas is temporarily out of action, in bed with the flu.
Oh I am sorry to hear that! Let me post out a patch based on
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 03:32:58PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Thomas ping. Would you be posting this patch?
FYI, Thomas is temporarily out of action, in bed with the flu.
Thanks,
Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On 01/27/2015 09:01 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 01/22/2015 04:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>>> On 01/21/2015 05:16 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> How about when the cpu that is going offline receives a timer interrupt
>>> just before setting its
On 01/27/2015 09:01 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 01/22/2015 04:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 01/21/2015 05:16 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
How about when the cpu that is going offline receives a timer interrupt
just before setting its state to
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 03:32:58PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
Thomas ping. Would you be posting this patch?
FYI, Thomas is temporarily out of action, in bed with the flu.
Thanks,
Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
On 01/29/2015 03:01 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 03:32:58PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
Thomas ping. Would you be posting this patch?
FYI, Thomas is temporarily out of action, in bed with the flu.
Oh I am sorry to hear that! Let me post out a patch based on Thomas's
On 01/22/2015 04:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> On 01/21/2015 05:16 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> How about when the cpu that is going offline receives a timer interrupt
>> just before setting its state to CPU_DEAD ? That is still possible right
>>
On 01/22/2015 04:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 01/21/2015 05:16 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
How about when the cpu that is going offline receives a timer interrupt
just before setting its state to CPU_DEAD ? That is still possible right
given that
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> On 01/21/2015 05:16 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> How about when the cpu that is going offline receives a timer interrupt
> just before setting its state to CPU_DEAD ? That is still possible right
> given that its clock devices may not have been
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 01/21/2015 05:16 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
How about when the cpu that is going offline receives a timer interrupt
just before setting its state to CPU_DEAD ? That is still possible right
given that its clock devices may not have been shutdown
On 01/21/2015 05:16 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/time/clockevents.c b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
>> index 5544990..f3907c9 100644
>> --- a/kernel/time/clockevents.c
>> +++ b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
>> @@ -568,6 +568,7 @@ int
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/time/clockevents.c b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> index 5544990..f3907c9 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> @@ -568,6 +568,7 @@ int clockevents_notify(unsigned long reason, void *arg)
>
>
On 01/21/2015 05:16 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
diff --git a/kernel/time/clockevents.c b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
index 5544990..f3907c9 100644
--- a/kernel/time/clockevents.c
+++ b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
@@ -568,6 +568,7 @@ int
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
diff --git a/kernel/time/clockevents.c b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
index 5544990..f3907c9 100644
--- a/kernel/time/clockevents.c
+++ b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
@@ -568,6 +568,7 @@ int clockevents_notify(unsigned long reason, void *arg)
Today if the cpu handling broadcasting of wakeups goes offline, the job of
broadcasting is handed over to another cpu in the CPU_DEAD phase. The CPU_DEAD
notifiers are run only after the offline cpu sets its state as CPU_DEAD.
Meanwhile, the kthread doing the offline is scheduled out while waiting
Today if the cpu handling broadcasting of wakeups goes offline, the job of
broadcasting is handed over to another cpu in the CPU_DEAD phase. The CPU_DEAD
notifiers are run only after the offline cpu sets its state as CPU_DEAD.
Meanwhile, the kthread doing the offline is scheduled out while waiting
16 matches
Mail list logo
