On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 08:50:49AM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> On 25/09/2017 18:27, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Laurent Dufour
> > wrote:
> >> Despite the unprovable lockdep warning raised by Sergey, I didn't get any
> >> feedback
On 25/09/2017 18:27, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Laurent Dufour
> wrote:
>> Despite the unprovable lockdep warning raised by Sergey, I didn't get any
>> feedback on this series.
>>
>> Is there a chance to get it moved upstream ?
>
>
On 03/10/2017 03:27, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Laurent Dufour writes:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On 28/09/2017 22:38, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:29:02 +0200 Laurent Dufour
>>> wrote:
>>>
> Laurent's [0/n] provides some
Laurent Dufour writes:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On 28/09/2017 22:38, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:29:02 +0200 Laurent Dufour
>> wrote:
>>
Laurent's [0/n] provides some nice-looking performance benefits for
workloads
Hi Andrew,
On 28/09/2017 22:38, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:29:02 +0200 Laurent Dufour
wrote:
Laurent's [0/n] provides some nice-looking performance benefits for
workloads which are chosen to show performance benefits(!) but, alas,
no quantitative
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:29:02 +0200 Laurent Dufour
wrote:
> > Laurent's [0/n] provides some nice-looking performance benefits for
> > workloads which are chosen to show performance benefits(!) but, alas,
> > no quantitative testing results for workloads which we may
Hi Andrew,
On 26/09/2017 01:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:27:43 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Laurent Dufour
wrote:
Despite the unprovable lockdep warning raised by Sergey, I
Hi,
On 26/09/2017 01:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:27:43 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Laurent Dufour
wrote:
Despite the unprovable lockdep warning raised by Sergey, I didn't
Hi Alexei,
Le 25/09/2017 à 18:27, Alexei Starovoitov a écrit :
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Laurent Dufour
wrote:
Despite the unprovable lockdep warning raised by Sergey, I didn't get any
feedback on this series.
Is there a chance to get it moved upstream ?
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:27:43 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Laurent Dufour
> wrote:
> > Despite the unprovable lockdep warning raised by Sergey, I didn't get any
> > feedback on this series.
> >
> >
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Laurent Dufour
wrote:
> Despite the unprovable lockdep warning raised by Sergey, I didn't get any
> feedback on this series.
>
> Is there a chance to get it moved upstream ?
what is the status ?
We're eagerly looking forward for this
Despite the unprovable lockdep warning raised by Sergey, I didn't get any
feedback on this series.
Is there a chance to get it moved upstream ?
Thanks,
Laurent.
On 08/09/2017 20:06, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> This is a port on kernel 4.13 of the work done by Peter Zijlstra to
> handle page fault
This is a port on kernel 4.13 of the work done by Peter Zijlstra to
handle page fault without holding the mm semaphore [1].
The idea is to try to handle user space page faults without holding the
mmap_sem. This should allow better concurrency for massively threaded
process since the page fault
On 08/09/2017 19:32, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> This is a port on kernel 4.13 of the work done by Peter Zijlstra to
> handle page fault without holding the mm semaphore [1].
Sorry for the noise, I got trouble sending the whole series through this
email. I will try again.
Cheers,
Laurent.
This is a port on kernel 4.13 of the work done by Peter Zijlstra to
handle page fault without holding the mm semaphore [1].
The idea is to try to handle user space page faults without holding the
mmap_sem. This should allow better concurrency for massively threaded
process since the page fault
15 matches
Mail list logo