On 10/11/10 17:47, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/10/2010 11:22 AM, Ian Molton wrote:
Ping ?
I think the best way forward is to post patches.
I posted links to the git trees. I can post patches, but they are
*large*. Do you really want me to post them?
To summarize what I was trying to
On 11/12/2010 06:14 AM, Ian Molton wrote:
On 10/11/10 17:47, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/10/2010 11:22 AM, Ian Molton wrote:
Ping ?
I think the best way forward is to post patches.
I posted links to the git trees. I can post patches, but they are
*large*. Do you really want me to post
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 10:59:45AM -0400, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Make the bulk of __ticket_spin_lock look identical for large and small
number of cpus.
[snip]
#if (NR_CPUS 256)
static __always_inline void __ticket_spin_lock(arch_spinlock_t *lock)
{
- register union {
-
On 11/12/2010 04:19 AM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 10:59:45AM -0400, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Make the bulk of __ticket_spin_lock look identical for large and small
number of cpus.
[snip]
#if (NR_CPUS 256)
static __always_inline void
On 11/11/2010 at 3:49 PM, in message 2010124904.24010...@nehalam,
Stephen Hemminger shemmin...@vyatta.com wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:03:10 -0700
Ky Srinivasan ksriniva...@novell.com wrote:
+static char *kvp_keys[KVP_MAX_KEY] = {FullyQualifiedDomainName,
+
On 11/11/2010 at 3:49 PM, in message 2010124904.24010...@nehalam,
Stephen Hemminger shemmin...@vyatta.com wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:03:10 -0700
Ky Srinivasan ksriniva...@novell.com wrote:
+static char *kvp_keys[KVP_MAX_KEY] = {FullyQualifiedDomainName,
+
On 11/11/2010 at 3:49 PM, in message 2010124904.24010...@nehalam,
Stephen Hemminger shemmin...@vyatta.com wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:03:10 -0700
Ky Srinivasan ksriniva...@novell.com wrote:
+static char *kvp_keys[KVP_MAX_KEY] = {FullyQualifiedDomainName,
+
At last weeks' LPC, there was some interest in my patches for Auto/Lazy
Migration to improve locality and possibly performance of unpinned guest
VMs on a NUMA platform. As a result of these conversations I have reposted
the patches [4 series, ~40 patches] as RFCs to the linux-numa list. Links
to
On 11/11/2010 at 4:15 PM, in message 2010211548.ga31...@kroah.com,
Greg
KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:03:10PM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
+/*
+ * An implementation of key value pair (KVP) functionality for Linux.
+ *
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2010, Novell, Inc.
On 11/11/2010 at 4:19 PM, in message 2010211904.gb31...@kroah.com,
Greg
KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:03:10PM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
+/*
+ * Array of keys we support in Linux.
Not really, you can support any number of keys as the kernel shouldn't
care,
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:06:18AM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
+typedef struct kvp_msg {
+ __u32 kvp_key; /* Key */
+ __u8 kvp_value[0]; /* Corresponding value */
+} kvp_msg_t;
I thought that kvp_value was really KVP_VALUE_SIZE?
kvp_value is typed information and KVP_VALUE_SIZE
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:29:58AM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
On 11/11/2010 at 4:19 PM, in message 2010211904.gb31...@kroah.com,
Greg
KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:03:10PM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
+/*
+ * Array of keys we support in Linux.
Not
On 11/12/2010 at 1:47 PM, in message 20101112184753.ga20...@kroah.com,
Greg
KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:06:18AM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
+typedef struct kvp_msg {
+ __u32 kvp_key; /* Key */
+ __u8 kvp_value[0]; /* Corresponding value */
+} kvp_msg_t;
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 01:59:42PM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
On 11/12/2010 at 1:47 PM, in message 20101112184753.ga20...@kroah.com,
Greg
KH g...@kroah.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:06:18AM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
+typedef struct kvp_msg {
+ __u32 kvp_key; /*
On 11/03/2010 07:59 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
- with an unmodified struct spinlock, it can check to see if
head == tail after unlock; if not, then there's someone else
trying to lock, and we can do a kick. Unfortunately this
generates very high level of
On 11/12/2010 02:12 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 11/03/2010 07:59 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
- with an unmodified struct spinlock, it can check to see if
head == tail after unlock; if not, then there's someone else
trying to lock, and we can do a kick. Unfortunately
On 11/12/2010 02:17 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
On 11/12/2010 02:12 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 11/03/2010 07:59 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
- with an unmodified struct spinlock, it can check to see if
head == tail after unlock; if not, then there's someone else
17 matches
Mail list logo
