On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 05:16:50PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > There is a seqcounter that protects against spurious allocation failures
> > when a task is changing the allowed nodes in a cpuset. There is no need
> > to check the seqcounter until a
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 05:16:50PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Mel Gorman wrote:
There is a seqcounter that protects against spurious allocation failures
when a task is changing the allowed nodes in a cpuset. There is no need
to check the seqcounter until a cpuset
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Mel Gorman wrote:
> There is a seqcounter that protects against spurious allocation failures
> when a task is changing the allowed nodes in a cpuset. There is no need
> to check the seqcounter until a cpuset exists.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
> Acked-by: David Rientjes
There is a seqcounter that protects against spurious allocation failures
when a task is changing the allowed nodes in a cpuset. There is no need
to check the seqcounter until a cpuset exists.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
Acked-by: David Rientjes
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka
---
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Mel Gorman wrote:
There is a seqcounter that protects against spurious allocation failures
when a task is changing the allowed nodes in a cpuset. There is no need
to check the seqcounter until a cpuset exists.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman mgor...@techsingularity.net
There is a seqcounter that protects against spurious allocation failures
when a task is changing the allowed nodes in a cpuset. There is no need
to check the seqcounter until a cpuset exists.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman mgor...@techsingularity.net
Acked-by: David Rientjes rient...@google.com
On 07/20/2015 10:00 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
From: Mel Gorman
There is a seqcounter that protects spurious allocation fails when a task
is changing the allowed nodes in a cpuset. There is no need to check the
seqcounter until a cpuset exists.
If cpusets become enabled betwen _begin and _retry,
On 07/20/2015 10:00 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
From: Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de
There is a seqcounter that protects spurious allocation fails when a task
is changing the allowed nodes in a cpuset. There is no need to check the
seqcounter until a cpuset exists.
If cpusets become enabled betwen
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Mel Gorman wrote:
> From: Mel Gorman
>
> There is a seqcounter that protects spurious allocation fails when a task
> is changing the allowed nodes in a cpuset. There is no need to check the
> seqcounter until a cpuset exists.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
Acked-by: David
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Mel Gorman wrote:
From: Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de
There is a seqcounter that protects spurious allocation fails when a task
is changing the allowed nodes in a cpuset. There is no need to check the
seqcounter until a cpuset exists.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
From: Mel Gorman
There is a seqcounter that protects spurious allocation fails when a task
is changing the allowed nodes in a cpuset. There is no need to check the
seqcounter until a cpuset exists.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
---
include/linux/cpuset.h | 6 ++
1 file changed, 6
From: Mel Gorman mgor...@suse.de
There is a seqcounter that protects spurious allocation fails when a task
is changing the allowed nodes in a cpuset. There is no need to check the
seqcounter until a cpuset exists.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman mgor...@sujse.de
---
include/linux/cpuset.h | 6 ++
12 matches
Mail list logo