On 03/02/2018 10:39 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2018-03-02 10:29:56 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
Could please point me to the code/patches or something?
I rebase onto v4.14.20-rt17, running some sanity test before reposting to ml
(cyclictest & Anna's timertest). Will post V4
On 03/02/2018 10:39 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2018-03-02 10:29:56 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
Could please point me to the code/patches or something?
I rebase onto v4.14.20-rt17, running some sanity test before reposting to ml
(cyclictest & Anna's timertest). Will post V4
On 2018-03-02 10:29:56 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
> > Could please point me to the code/patches or something?
>
> I rebase onto v4.14.20-rt17, running some sanity test before reposting to ml
> (cyclictest & Anna's timertest). Will post V4 sometime today (US Central
> Time) if everything goes
On 2018-03-02 10:29:56 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
> > Could please point me to the code/patches or something?
>
> I rebase onto v4.14.20-rt17, running some sanity test before reposting to ml
> (cyclictest & Anna's timertest). Will post V4 sometime today (US Central
> Time) if everything goes
Could please point me to the code/patches or something?
I rebase onto v4.14.20-rt17, running some sanity test before reposting
to ml (cyclictest & Anna's timertest). Will post V4 sometime today (US
Central Time) if everything goes well.
Are you also asking for a 4.9 version? I'm fine
Could please point me to the code/patches or something?
I rebase onto v4.14.20-rt17, running some sanity test before reposting
to ml (cyclictest & Anna's timertest). Will post V4 sometime today (US
Central Time) if everything goes well.
Are you also asking for a 4.9 version? I'm fine
On 2018-03-01 12:37:49 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
> It was added back into 4.9 at some point after v4.9.30-rt20. I see an older
> version in v4.9.68-rt60, for example, hence my original email. It was
> dropped sometime thereafter, presumably because it no longer cleanly
> applies. I don't see
On 2018-03-01 12:37:49 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
> It was added back into 4.9 at some point after v4.9.30-rt20. I see an older
> version in v4.9.68-rt60, for example, hence my original email. It was
> dropped sometime thereafter, presumably because it no longer cleanly
> applies. I don't see
On 2018-03-01 12:37:49 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
> On 03/01/2018 10:47 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2018-03-01 09:49:59 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
> > > *bump* Has anyone looked into this?
> >
> > I'm lost.
> > It entered the kernel in v4.9.9-rt6 and left in v4.9.30-rt20
On 2018-03-01 12:37:49 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
> On 03/01/2018 10:47 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2018-03-01 09:49:59 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
> > > *bump* Has anyone looked into this?
> >
> > I'm lost.
> > It entered the kernel in v4.9.9-rt6 and left in v4.9.30-rt20
On 03/01/2018 10:47 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2018-03-01 09:49:59 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
*bump* Has anyone looked into this?
I'm lost.
It entered the kernel in v4.9.9-rt6 and left in v4.9.30-rt20 once we
figured out that there is something wrong with it.
It was added
On 03/01/2018 10:47 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2018-03-01 09:49:59 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
*bump* Has anyone looked into this?
I'm lost.
It entered the kernel in v4.9.9-rt6 and left in v4.9.30-rt20 once we
figured out that there is something wrong with it.
It was added
On 2018-03-01 09:49:59 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
> *bump* Has anyone looked into this?
I'm lost.
It entered the kernel in v4.9.9-rt6 and left in v4.9.30-rt20 once we
figured out that there is something wrong with it.
Is it still in a RT tree somewhere?
Is there a newer patch pending on your
On 2018-03-01 09:49:59 [-0600], Haris Okanovic wrote:
> *bump* Has anyone looked into this?
I'm lost.
It entered the kernel in v4.9.9-rt6 and left in v4.9.30-rt20 once we
figured out that there is something wrong with it.
Is it still in a RT tree somewhere?
Is there a newer patch pending on your
No problem. I know you've been busy recently. I'll post an update.
-- Haris
On 03/01/2018 09:54 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Haris Okanovic wrote:
*bump* Has anyone looked into this?
I have, but it's still in my melted spectrum induced backlog and it does
not apply
No problem. I know you've been busy recently. I'll post an update.
-- Haris
On 03/01/2018 09:54 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Haris Okanovic wrote:
*bump* Has anyone looked into this?
I have, but it's still in my melted spectrum induced backlog and it does
not apply
On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Haris Okanovic wrote:
> *bump* Has anyone looked into this?
I have, but it's still in my melted spectrum induced backlog and it does
not apply anymore :)
Thanks,
tglx
On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Haris Okanovic wrote:
> *bump* Has anyone looked into this?
I have, but it's still in my melted spectrum induced backlog and it does
not apply anymore :)
Thanks,
tglx
*bump* Has anyone looked into this?
On 01/05/2018 01:37 PM, Haris Okanovic wrote:
It looks like an old version of this patch is included in v4.9*-rt*
kernels -- E.g. commit 032f93ca in v4.9.68-rt60. There's nothing
functionally wrong with the included version to the best of my
knowledge.
*bump* Has anyone looked into this?
On 01/05/2018 01:37 PM, Haris Okanovic wrote:
It looks like an old version of this patch is included in v4.9*-rt*
kernels -- E.g. commit 032f93ca in v4.9.68-rt60. There's nothing
functionally wrong with the included version to the best of my
knowledge.
It looks like an old version of this patch is included in v4.9*-rt*
kernels -- E.g. commit 032f93ca in v4.9.68-rt60. There's nothing
functionally wrong with the included version to the best of my
knowledge. However, I posted a newer V3 [1][2] based on Thomas' feedback
that's substantially
It looks like an old version of this patch is included in v4.9*-rt*
kernels -- E.g. commit 032f93ca in v4.9.68-rt60. There's nothing
functionally wrong with the included version to the best of my
knowledge. However, I posted a newer V3 [1][2] based on Thomas' feedback
that's substantially
This change avoid needlessly searching for more timers in
run_local_timers() (hard interrupt context) when they can't fire.
For example, when ktimersoftd/run_timer_softirq() is scheduled but
preempted due to cpu contention. When it runs, run_timer_softirq() will
discover newly expired timers up to
This change avoid needlessly searching for more timers in
run_local_timers() (hard interrupt context) when they can't fire.
For example, when ktimersoftd/run_timer_softirq() is scheduled but
preempted due to cpu contention. When it runs, run_timer_softirq() will
discover newly expired timers up to
24 matches
Mail list logo
