2010/11/25 Andriy Gapon :
> on 25/11/2010 17:28 John Baldwin said the following:
>> Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>> on 22/11/2010 16:24 John Baldwin said the following:
Well, the real solution is actually larger than described in the PR. What
you
really want to do is take the logical CPUs
on 25/11/2010 17:28 John Baldwin said the following:
> Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 22/11/2010 16:24 John Baldwin said the following:
>>> Well, the real solution is actually larger than described in the PR. What
>>> you
>>> really want to do is take the logical CPUs offline when they are "halted".
Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 22/11/2010 16:24 John Baldwin said the following:
Well, the real solution is actually larger than described in the PR. What you
really want to do is take the logical CPUs offline when they are "halted".
Taking a CPU offline should trigger an EVENTHANDLER that various bi
on 22/11/2010 16:24 John Baldwin said the following:
> Well, the real solution is actually larger than described in the PR. What
> you
> really want to do is take the logical CPUs offline when they are "halted".
> Taking a CPU offline should trigger an EVENTHANDLER that various bits of code
>
On Saturday, November 20, 2010 4:58:02 pm Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Trying to do a complete solution for kern/145385, Andriy has
> raised concerns about IRQ mapping to CPUs; while I've have put
> together more pieces of the puzzle, I'm a bit confused how I determine
> whether or not an IRQ is ava
Trying to do a complete solution for kern/145385, Andriy has
raised concerns about IRQ mapping to CPUs; while I've have put
together more pieces of the puzzle, I'm a bit confused how I determine
whether or not an IRQ is available for use.
Sure, I could linear probe a series of IRQs, but tha
6 matches
Mail list logo
