On Oct 4, 2007, at 10:43 AM, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071004 06:05] wrote:
His point about telling us what you're really doing, so we might
off other ways to do it is valid.
We don't know why you are using homeg
Attilio Rao wrote:
2007/10/3, Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
* Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 19:46] wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Hi guys, we need critical sections for userland here.
This is basically to avoid a process being switch
2007/10/3, Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 19:46] wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >
> > >Hi guys, we need critical sections for userland here.
> > >
> > >This is
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071004 06:05] wrote:
His point about telling us what you're really doing, so we might
off other ways to do it is valid.
We don't know why you are using homegrown user-level spinlocks
instead of pthread mutexes.
* Wilko Bulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071004 04:15] wrote:
> Quoting Alfred Perlstein, who wrote on Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:19:02AM -0700
> ..
> > * Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071004 03:01] wrote:
> > > Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Do you have:
> > > >
> > > > a
* Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071004 06:05] wrote:
>
> His point about telling us what you're really doing, so we might
> off other ways to do it is valid.
>
> We don't know why you are using homegrown user-level spinlocks
> instead of pthread mutexes. Priority ceiling mutexes and runnin
* Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071004 03:28] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's not worth my time to engage someone with your mind set, you
> > posses neither the technical nor interpersonal skill to be useful
> > to me.
>
> This could be the beginning of a
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071004 03:01] wrote:
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Do you have:
a) Evidence or a paper to prove that this is a bad idea?
I need evidence or a paper to prove that it is a bad idea to allow
Quoting Alfred Perlstein, who wrote on Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:19:02AM -0700 ..
> * Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071004 03:01] wrote:
> > Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Do you have:
> > >
> > > a) Evidence or a paper to prove that this is a bad idea?
> >
> > I need
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not worth my time to engage someone with your mind set, you
> posses neither the technical nor interpersonal skill to be useful
> to me.
This could be the beginning of a wonderful friendship...
> For context see my replies in this thread to Kip
* Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071004 03:01] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Do you have:
> >
> > a) Evidence or a paper to prove that this is a bad idea?
>
> I need evidence or a paper to prove that it is a bad idea to allow a
> userland process to hold the
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you have:
>
> a) Evidence or a paper to prove that this is a bad idea?
I need evidence or a paper to prove that it is a bad idea to allow a
userland process to hold the CPU indefinitely?
> b) A helpful suggestion?
Why don't you tell us what you'r
* Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071004 02:05] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hi guys, we need critical sections for userland here.
> >
> > This is basically to avoid a process being switched out while holding
> > a use
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi guys, we need critical sections for userland here.
>
> This is basically to avoid a process being switched out while holding
> a user level spinlock.
Yeah, great idea, cooperative multitasking is the new black!
DES
--
D
* Kip Macy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 20:24] wrote:
> See /sys/priority.h realtime is right below ithreads in terms of
> priority. One of the big motivations for gang scheduling and part of
> the reason why SMP guests often perform poorly is that apps / VMs
> don't scale well if they're deschedul
On 10/2/07, Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 19:46] wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >
> > >Hi guys, we need critical sections for userland here.
> > >
> > >T
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 19:46] wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi guys, we need critical sections for userland here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is basically to avoid a proc
hen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 19:46] wrote:
> >>>>On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Hi guys, we need critical sections for userland here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>This is basically to avoid a pr
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 20:02] wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 19:46] wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Hi guys, we need critical
* Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 20:02] wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> >* Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 19:46] wrote:
> >>On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi guys, we nee
* Kip Macy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 20:00] wrote:
> On 10/2/07, Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 19:46] wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > >
> > >
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 19:46] wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Hi guys, we need critical sections for userland here.
This is basically to avoid a process being switched out while holding
a user
* Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071002 19:46] wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> >Hi guys, we need critical sections for userland here.
> >
> >This is basically to avoid a process being switched out while holding
> >a user level s
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Hi guys, we need critical sections for userland here.
This is basically to avoid a process being switched out while holding
a user level spinlock.
Setting the scheduling class to real-time and using SCHED_FIFO
and adjusting the thread priority
Hi guys, we need critical sections for userland here.
This is basically to avoid a process being switched out while holding
a user level spinlock.
The way I envisioned doing this was as follows:
1) syscall that sets a pointer in the struct thread.
2) user mlocks that page.
3) when scheduler
25 matches
Mail list logo
