On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:57:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:33:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:57:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:28:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 17,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:33:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:57:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:28:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:37:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > Oh, and to
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:57:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:28:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:37:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Oh, and to answer the implicit question... A properly configured 4096-CPU
> > > system
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:28:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:37:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Oh, and to answer the implicit question... A properly configured 4096-CPU
> > system will have two funnel levels, with 64 nodes at the leaf level
> > and a
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:37:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Oh, and to answer the implicit question... A properly configured 4096-CPU
> system will have two funnel levels, with 64 nodes at the leaf level
> and a single node at the root level. If the system is not properly
> configured,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:28:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:37:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Oh, and to answer the implicit question... A properly configured 4096-CPU
system will have two funnel levels, with 64 nodes at the leaf level
and a single node
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:57:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:28:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:37:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Oh, and to answer the implicit question... A properly configured 4096-CPU
system will have
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:33:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:57:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:28:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:37:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Oh, and to answer the
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:57:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:33:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:57:50AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:28:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:37:17AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Oh, and to answer the implicit question... A properly configured 4096-CPU
system will have two funnel levels, with 64 nodes at the leaf level
and a single node at the root level. If the system is not properly
configured, it
On 06/17/2014 01:37 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Oh, and to answer the implicit question... A properly configured 4096-CPU
system will have two funnel levels, with 64 nodes at the leaf level
and a single node at the root level. If the system is not properly
configured, it will have three
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
>
> Pranith, Romanov: You do -not-, repeat -not-, get to shoot from the hip
> with this code. You absolutely need to understand what it is doing and
> why before you try hacking on it. Otherwise, all that will happen is
> that you will
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:11:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:56:22PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 06/17/2014 12:01 PM, Romanov Arya wrote:
> > >On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > > wrote:
> > >>On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:55:29PM -0400,
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:56:22PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 06/17/2014 12:01 PM, Romanov Arya wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> >>On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:55:29PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> >>>This might sound really naive, but please bear with
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:01:28PM -0400, Romanov Arya wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:55:29PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> >> This might sound really naive, but please bear with me.
> >>
> >> force_quiescent_state() used to do
On 06/17/2014 12:01 PM, Romanov Arya wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:55:29PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
This might sound really naive, but please bear with me.
force_quiescent_state() used to do a lot of things in the past in
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:55:29PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> This might sound really naive, but please bear with me.
>>
>> force_quiescent_state() used to do a lot of things in the past in addition to
>> forcing a quiescent state.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:55:29PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> This might sound really naive, but please bear with me.
>
> force_quiescent_state() used to do a lot of things in the past in addition to
> forcing a quiescent state. (In my reading of the mailing list I found state
> transitions
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:55:29PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
This might sound really naive, but please bear with me.
force_quiescent_state() used to do a lot of things in the past in addition to
forcing a quiescent state. (In my reading of the mailing list I found state
transitions for
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:55:29PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
This might sound really naive, but please bear with me.
force_quiescent_state() used to do a lot of things in the past in addition to
forcing a
On 06/17/2014 12:01 PM, Romanov Arya wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:55:29PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
This might sound really naive, but please bear with me.
force_quiescent_state() used to do a lot of
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:01:28PM -0400, Romanov Arya wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:55:29PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
This might sound really naive, but please bear with me.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:56:22PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 06/17/2014 12:01 PM, Romanov Arya wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:55:29PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
This might sound really naive, but
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:11:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:56:22PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
On 06/17/2014 12:01 PM, Romanov Arya wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Pranith, Romanov: You do -not-, repeat -not-, get to shoot from the hip
with this code. You absolutely need to understand what it is doing and
why before you try hacking on it. Otherwise, all that will
On 06/17/2014 01:37 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Oh, and to answer the implicit question... A properly configured 4096-CPU
system will have two funnel levels, with 64 nodes at the leaf level
and a single node at the root level. If the system is not properly
configured, it will have three
This might sound really naive, but please bear with me.
force_quiescent_state() used to do a lot of things in the past in addition to
forcing a quiescent state. (In my reading of the mailing list I found state
transitions for one).
Now according to the code, what is being done is multiple
This might sound really naive, but please bear with me.
force_quiescent_state() used to do a lot of things in the past in addition to
forcing a quiescent state. (In my reading of the mailing list I found state
transitions for one).
Now according to the code, what is being done is multiple
28 matches
Mail list logo
