On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 17:59 -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Here it is ..
Should I do one for poll() also ?
Thanks,
Badari
Optimize select by a using stack space for small fd sets.
core_sys_select() already has this optimization. This is
for compat version.
Signed-off-by: Badari
On 22.05.2007 [09:16:37 -0500], Steve Fox wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 17:59 -0700, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Here it is ..
Should I do one for poll() also ?
Thanks,
Badari
Optimize select by a using stack space for small fd sets.
core_sys_select() already has this
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 07:34 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
On 22.05.2007 [09:16:37 -0500], Steve Fox wrote:
Andy put this through a couple machines on test.kernel.org and elm3b6
was fixed, however elm3b239 still had a boot error.
BUG: at mm/slab.c:777 __find_general_cachep()
On 5/18/07, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 16 May 2007 17:37, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Hi Hugh,
It's interesting that compat_core_sys_select() shows this kmalloc(0)
failure but core_sys_select() does not. That's because core_sys_select()
avoids kmalloc by using a buffer
On Wednesday 16 May 2007 17:37, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Hi Hugh,
It's interesting that compat_core_sys_select() shows this kmalloc(0)
failure but core_sys_select() does not. That's because core_sys_select()
avoids kmalloc by using a buffer on the stack for small allocations (and
0 sure
Hi Hugh,
It's interesting that compat_core_sys_select() shows this kmalloc(0)
failure but core_sys_select() does not. That's because core_sys_select()
avoids kmalloc by using a buffer on the stack for small allocations (and
0 sure is small). Shouldn't compat_core_sys_select() do just the
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 10:37 -0500, Anton Blanchard wrote:
Hi Hugh,
It's interesting that compat_core_sys_select() shows this kmalloc(0)
failure but core_sys_select() does not. That's because core_sys_select()
avoids kmalloc by using a buffer on the stack for small allocations (and
0
On Tue, 15 May 2007 10:29:18 -0700
Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is select(0, ..) is a valid operation ?
select(0, ..) is rather commonly used as a portable sleep() with
microsecond granularity. Disabling it will break lots of things.
Mark
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
Badari Pulavarty napsal(a):
Hi,
Is select(0, ..) is a valid operation ?
Yes, it was (is) sometimes used for measuring (sleeping for) short time slices.
regards,
--
http://www.fi.muni.cz/~xslaby/Jiri Slaby
faculty of informatics, masaryk university, brno, cz
e-mail: jirislaby
On Tue, 15 May 2007 10:29:18 -0700
Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is select(0, ..) is a valid operation ?
Yes. It's a fairly classic old BSD way to do timeouts
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 15 May 2007 10:29:18 -0700
Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is select(0, ..) is a valid operation ?
Probably - it becomes an elaborate way of doing a sleep. Whatever - we
used to permit it without error, so we should continue to do so.
I see that there is no check to
Badari Pulavarty wrote:
Hi,
Is select(0, ..) is a valid operation ?
I see that there is no check to prevent this or return
success early, without doing any work. Do we need one ?
slub code is complaining that we are doing kmalloc(0).
select(0, ...) is valid, and is functionally
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 10:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007 10:29:18 -0700
Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Is select(0, ..) is a valid operation ?
Probably - it becomes an elaborate way of doing a sleep. Whatever - we
used to permit it without error,
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
I _think_ we can just do
--- a/fs/compat.c~a
+++ a/fs/compat.c
@@ -1566,9 +1566,13 @@ int compat_core_sys_select(int n, compat
*/
ret = -ENOMEM;
size = FDS_BYTES(n);
- bits = kmalloc(6 * size, GFP_KERNEL);
- if
On Tue, 15 May 2007 11:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
I _think_ we can just do
--- a/fs/compat.c~a
+++ a/fs/compat.c
@@ -1566,9 +1566,13 @@ int compat_core_sys_select(int n, compat
*/
ret = -ENOMEM;
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
Perhaps putting a size=0 detector into slab also would speed this
process up.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: linux-2.6/mm/slab.c
===
---
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 15 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
I _think_ we can just do
--- a/fs/compat.c~a
+++ a/fs/compat.c
@@ -1566,9 +1566,13 @@ int compat_core_sys_select(int n, compat
*/
ret = -ENOMEM;
size = FDS_BYTES(n);
- bits
17 matches
Mail list logo