On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:30:41 +0200 (CEST), Thomas Gleixner
> wrote:
> > The problem with the current notifiers is, that we only have ordering
> > for a few specific callbacks, but we don't have the faintest idea in
> > which order all other random
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:30:41 +0200 (CEST), Thomas Gleixner
t...@linutronix.de wrote:
The problem with the current notifiers is, that we only have ordering
for a few specific callbacks, but we don't have the faintest idea in
which order all other
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:30:41 +0200 (CEST), Thomas Gleixner
wrote:
> The problem with the current notifiers is, that we only have ordering
> for a few specific callbacks, but we don't have the faintest idea in
> which order all other random stuff is brought up and torn down.
>
> So I started
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:30:41 +0200 (CEST), Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de
wrote:
The problem with the current notifiers is, that we only have ordering
for a few specific callbacks, but we don't have the faintest idea in
which order all other random stuff is brought up and torn down.
So
On 07/25/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
>> One of the other ideas to improve the hotplug notifier stuff that came up
>> during some
>> of the discussions was to implement explicit dependency
On 07/26/2012 04:25 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 07/25/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> struct hotplug_event hotplug_events_bp[CPU_HOTPLUG_MAX_EVENTS];
>>> struct hotplug_event hotplug_events_ap[CPU_HOTPLUG_MAX_EVENTS];
>>>
>>> The
On 07/26/2012 04:32 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 07/25/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> While I thought about having a full dependency tracking system, I'm
>>> quite convinced by now, that hotplug is a rather linear sequence which
>>>
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > While I thought about having a full dependency tracking system, I'm
> > quite convinced by now, that hotplug is a rather linear sequence which
> > does not provide much room for paralell
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > struct hotplug_event hotplug_events_bp[CPU_HOTPLUG_MAX_EVENTS];
> > struct hotplug_event hotplug_events_ap[CPU_HOTPLUG_MAX_EVENTS];
> >
> > The _bp one is the list of events which are executed on
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 07/25/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
struct hotplug_event hotplug_events_bp[CPU_HOTPLUG_MAX_EVENTS];
struct hotplug_event hotplug_events_ap[CPU_HOTPLUG_MAX_EVENTS];
The _bp one is the list of events which are executed on the
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 07/25/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
While I thought about having a full dependency tracking system, I'm
quite convinced by now, that hotplug is a rather linear sequence which
does not provide much room for paralell setup/teardown.
On 07/26/2012 04:32 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 07/25/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
While I thought about having a full dependency tracking system, I'm
quite convinced by now, that hotplug is a rather linear sequence which
does not
On 07/26/2012 04:25 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 07/25/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
struct hotplug_event hotplug_events_bp[CPU_HOTPLUG_MAX_EVENTS];
struct hotplug_event hotplug_events_ap[CPU_HOTPLUG_MAX_EVENTS];
The _bp one is the
On 07/25/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
One of the other ideas to improve the hotplug notifier stuff that came up
during some
of the discussions was to implement explicit dependency tracking between
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I think the best you can do is stop using notifiers and use something
> > else instead. For example, a simple set of function calls (assuming
> > you know beforehand what callbacks need to be invoked).
>
> Unfortunately, we don't know
On 07/25/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
>> One of the other ideas to improve the hotplug notifier stuff that came up
>> during some
>> of the discussions was to implement explicit dependency
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:10:41PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> > On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> This patchset implements the approach of invoking the CPU
On 07/25/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
>> One of the other ideas to improve the hotplug notifier stuff that came up
>> during some
>> of the discussions was to implement explicit dependency
On 07/25/2012 09:40 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
>> On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>
Hi,
This patchset implements the approach of invoking the CPU hotplug callbacks
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> One of the other ideas to improve the hotplug notifier stuff that came up
> during some
> of the discussions was to implement explicit dependency tracking between the
> notifiers
> and perhaps get rid of
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This patchset implements the approach of invoking the CPU hotplug callbacks
> >> (notifiers) in one order during CPU online and in the
On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patchset implements the approach of invoking the CPU hotplug callbacks
>> (notifiers) in one order during CPU online and in the reverse order during
>> CPU
>> offline. The rationale
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patchset implements the approach of invoking the CPU hotplug callbacks
> (notifiers) in one order during CPU online and in the reverse order during CPU
> offline. The rationale behind this is that services for a CPU are started in a
>
Hi,
This patchset implements the approach of invoking the CPU hotplug callbacks
(notifiers) in one order during CPU online and in the reverse order during CPU
offline. The rationale behind this is that services for a CPU are started in a
particular order (perhaps, with implicit dependencies
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
One of the other ideas to improve the hotplug notifier stuff that came up
during some
of the discussions was to implement explicit dependency tracking between the
notifiers
and perhaps get rid of the
On 07/25/2012 09:40 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Hi,
This patchset implements the approach of invoking the CPU hotplug callbacks
(notifiers) in one order during
On 07/25/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
One of the other ideas to improve the hotplug notifier stuff that came up
during some
of the discussions was to implement explicit dependency tracking between
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:10:41PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Hi,
This patchset implements the approach of invoking the CPU hotplug
callbacks
On 07/25/2012 10:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
One of the other ideas to improve the hotplug notifier stuff that came up
during some
of the discussions was to implement explicit dependency tracking between
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
I think the best you can do is stop using notifiers and use something
else instead. For example, a simple set of function calls (assuming
you know beforehand what callbacks need to be invoked).
Unfortunately, we don't know beforehand.
Hi,
This patchset implements the approach of invoking the CPU hotplug callbacks
(notifiers) in one order during CPU online and in the reverse order during CPU
offline. The rationale behind this is that services for a CPU are started in a
particular order (perhaps, with implicit dependencies
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Hi,
This patchset implements the approach of invoking the CPU hotplug callbacks
(notifiers) in one order during CPU online and in the reverse order during CPU
offline. The rationale behind this is that services for a CPU are started in a
On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Hi,
This patchset implements the approach of invoking the CPU hotplug callbacks
(notifiers) in one order during CPU online and in the reverse order during
CPU
offline. The rationale behind this is that
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 07/25/2012 08:27 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Hi,
This patchset implements the approach of invoking the CPU hotplug callbacks
(notifiers) in one order during CPU online and in the reverse order
34 matches
Mail list logo
