On 3/20/24 07:04, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 02:41:14PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 10:08, Tobias Huschle wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2024-03-18 15:45, Luis Machado wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/24 13:45, Tobias Huschle wrote:
&
On 3/14/24 13:45, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 03:11:38PM +0000, Luis Machado wrote:
>> On 2/28/24 16:10, Tobias Huschle wrote:
>>>
>>> Questions:
>>> 1. The kworker getting its negative lag occurs in the following scenario
>>>-
Hi Tobias,
On 2/28/24 16:10, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> The previously used CFS scheduler gave tasks that were woken up an
> enhanced chance to see runtime immediately by deducting a certain value
> from its vruntime on runqueue placement during wakeup.
>
> This property was used by some, at least
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 16:10 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 05:41:52AM +0530, K.Prasad wrote:
Hi David,
I'm back with a new version of patches after a brief hiatus!
After much deliberation about modifying the code to change the timing of
signal
delivery
Works for me.
I presume you had positive results on the Book-E as well.
By the way, thanks for cleaning it up.
Luis
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 14:27 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
* CONFIG_BOOKE is selected by CONFIG_44x so we dont need both
* Fixed a few comments
* Go back to only using DBCR0_IDM to
Some comment, first the above negate conditional
looks rather ugly, I'd rather do a
#if defined(CONFIG_4xx) || defined(CONFIG_BOOKE)
dbcr0 case
#else
dabr case
#endif
Yes, it makes sense. I'll switch it around.
second I wonder why we have the notify_die only for one case,
of this specific define value. It makes
things easier to support 405's later.
Like so?
This addresses Christoph's comments as well.
Signed-off-by: Luis Machado [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: linux-2.6.26/arch/powerpc/kernel/entry_32.S
-by: Luis Machado [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: linux-2.6.26/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
===
--- linux-2.6.26.orig/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c 2008-07-20
16:56:57.0 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.26/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c 2008
This doesn't look right for how it's coded. This would be the
CONFIG_4xx || CONFIG_BOOKE case, but CONFIG_4xx includes PowerPC 405.
That has a different bit layout among the DBCR registers. Namely, on
405 you would be clearing the TDE and IAC1 events because the DAC
events are in DBCR1,
Hi guys,
Did anyone have a chance to go over this patch? Looking forward to
receive feedbacks on it.
Thanks!
Regards,
Luis
On Fri, 2008-06-20 at 17:14 -0300, Luis Machado wrote:
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 13:51 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Luis Machado writes:
This is a patch that has been
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 13:51 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Luis Machado writes:
This is a patch that has been sitting idle for quite some time. I
decided to move it further because it is something useful. It was
originally written by Michel Darneille, based off of 2.6.16.
The original
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
--
Luis Machado
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 13:51 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Luis Machado writes:
This is a patch that has been sitting idle for quite some time. I
decided to move it further because it is something useful. It was
originally written by Michel Darneille, based off of 2.6.16.
The original
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 23:46 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
I would think there would be a different REQUEST value to mean set a
hardware breakpoint. Roland McGrath (cc'd) might be able to tell us
what other architectures do.
Other architectures don't give a good model to follow. (If
Hi,
This is a patch that has been sitting idle for quite some time. I
decided to move it further because it is something useful. It was
originally written by Michel Darneille, based off of 2.6.16.
The original patch, though, was not compatible with the current DABR
logic. DABR's are used to
Thanks for the inlining tip. It should be now. :-)
So, basically we are looking at a cleaner and much better interface to
set such hardware features? That's something that would greatly improve
the communication from, say, GDB to the kernel regarding these
facilities.
Regards,
Luis
On Wed,
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 23:30 +0100, Jens Osterkamp wrote:
Just to make sure, i tested the binary against the 2.6.25-rc4 kernel. It
still fails. So this is really an open bug for PPC.
On a Cell- or 970-based machine ?
Gruß,
Jens
On a 970-based machine.
Regards,
--
Luis Machado
the 2.6.25-rc4 kernel. It
still fails. So this is really an open bug for PPC.
--
Luis Machado
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
,
--
Luis Machado
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
the
almost the same CPU as G5's.
Regards,
--
Luis Machado
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
the watchpoint won't trigger, even though the monitored
variable's value was modified.
Appreciate your feedback.
Best regards,
--
Luis Machado
LoP Toolchain
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https
21 matches
Mail list logo
