Alex Bennée writes:
> Hi,
>
> It's been a while since we've actually held the call. Here are some
> things that might be worth discussing:
>
> Any other topics that need discussion?
I'll take that as a no then. Feel free to add any updates to this thread.
--
Alex Bennée
Hi,
It's been a while since we've actually held the call. Here are some
things that might be worth discussing:
Soft Freeze
===
This cycles soft-freeze is upon us. QHT has already been merged this
cycle which is a win. I've taken some of the lock contention patches
from my base enabling
alvise rigo writes:
> Hi Alex,
>
> I'm looking into the worries that Sergey issued in his review of the
> last LL/SC series. The target is to reduce the TLB flushes by using an
> exclusive history of dynamic length. I don't have anything ready yet
> though.
Are you also tackling the race condit
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> alvise rigo writes:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I'm looking into the worries that Sergey issued in his review of the
> > last LL/SC series. The target is to reduce the TLB flushes by using an
> > exclusive history of dynamic length. I don't have
Hi Alex,
I'm looking into the worries that Sergey issued in his review of the
last LL/SC series. The target is to reduce the TLB flushes by using an
exclusive history of dynamic length. I don't have anything ready yet
though.
Best regards,
alvise
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Alex Bennée wro
Hi,
We missed the last call (sorry I was travelling). Have we any topics we
would like to cover this week?
--
Alex Bennée
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:57:26 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Emilio, is there anything you want to add? I've been following the QHT
> stuff which is a really positive addition which my v3 base patches is
> based upon (making the hot-path non lock contended). Do you have
> anything in the works abov
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 14:57:12 +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> Hi, at some point in the past there was a set of performance benchmarks
> which were showing the improvements using mttcg, is there some update
> on that?
Any scalable parallel workload should do.
I've used the C/C++ benchmarks in s
Claudio Fontana writes:
> On 23.05.2016 14:47, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>
>> alvise rigo writes:
>>
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> I finally solved the issue I had, the branch is working well as far as I
>>> can say.
>>> The work I will share, in addition to making the LL/SC work mttcg-aware,
>>> extends the
On 23.05.2016 14:47, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> alvise rigo writes:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> I finally solved the issue I had, the branch is working well as far as I
>> can say.
>> The work I will share, in addition to making the LL/SC work mttcg-aware,
>> extends the various TLB flushes calls with the q
alvise rigo writes:
> Hi Alex,
>
> I finally solved the issue I had, the branch is working well as far as I
> can say.
> The work I will share, in addition to making the LL/SC work mttcg-aware,
> extends the various TLB flushes calls with the query-based mechanism: the
> requesting CPU queries t
Hi Alex,
I finally solved the issue I had, the branch is working well as far as I
can say.
The work I will share, in addition to making the LL/SC work mttcg-aware,
extends the various TLB flushes calls with the query-based mechanism: the
requesting CPU queries the flushes to the target CPUs and wa
Hi,
It's been a while since the last sync-up call. Have we got any topics to
discuss today?
Sergey and I (with a little Paolo) have spent some of last week delving
into the locking hierarchy w.r.t to tb_lock vs mmap_lock to see if there
is any simplification to be had. I'm not sure if this is a t
13 matches
Mail list logo
