On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 12:20:48AM +, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > I'm not suggesting that we use this as such (and it would take quite a
> > bit of work to merge it) but I think the general approach is worth
> > considering.
>
> i don't think it's worth to do at this point because
> - mu
hi,
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:32:12PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> > IPL is only being raised and that works in reference counting principle.
> > Therefore IPL is lowered (and only to IPL_NONE) after the last release,
> > see ci_mtx_oldspl and ci_mtx_count. Which means that order
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:39:23AM +, Andrew Doran wrote:
> > I'm not sure it's as rare as all that; it just mostly doesn't overtly
> > fail. Instead you end up silently running at a higher IPL than
> > necessary, and that buys you longer interrupt latencies and more
> > dropped packets and
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 07:43:24AM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 09:41:12PM +, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> > David Holland wrote:
> > > if (oldspl == highest && cur->l_iplcounts[highest-1] == 0) {
> > > while (highest > 0 && cur->l_iplcounts[highest-1] == 0
