24.02.2012 19:05, Attilio Rao пишет:
> 2012/2/24, Eugene Grosbein :
>> 24.02.2012 18:45, Attilio Rao пишет:
>>
I have the pathological test-case for it:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=165444
>>>
>>> A fix has been committed as r230984, it should apply to STABLE_9/8
>>> to
28.01.2012 20:22, Attilio Rao пишет:
> 2012/1/28 Ryan Stone :
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> I think what you found out is very sensitive.
>>> However, the patch is not correct as you cannot call
>>> cpuset_setthread() with thread_lock held.
>>
>> Whoops! I actually
2012/2/24, Eugene Grosbein :
> 24.02.2012 18:45, Attilio Rao пишет:
>
>>> I have the pathological test-case for it:
>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=165444
>>>
>>
>> A fix has been committed as r230984, it should apply to STABLE_9/8
>> too, can you try it?
>>
>> Attilio
>>
>>
>
> I wi
24.02.2012 18:45, Attilio Rao пишет:
>> I have the pathological test-case for it:
>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=165444
>>
>
> A fix has been committed as r230984, it should apply to STABLE_9/8
> too, can you try it?
>
> Attilio
>
>
I will try but I already run my patch for net
2012/2/24, Eugene Grosbein :
> 28.01.2012 20:22, Attilio Rao пишет:
>
>> 2012/1/28 Ryan Stone :
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Attilio Rao
>>> wrote:
I think what you found out is very sensitive.
However, the patch is not correct as you cannot call
cpuset_setthread() with thr
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> Do you have a pathological test-case for it? Are you going to test the patch?
>
> Thanks,
> Attilio
I tested the patch last night. Previously I was able to see a
softclock thread preempted for over 1ms on machine where 4/8 cores
were lightly
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 02:39:17PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2012/1/28 Attilio Rao :
> > 2012/1/28 Ryan Stone :
> >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >>> I think what you found out is very sensitive.
> >>> However, the patch is not correct as you cannot call
> >>> cpuset_se
2012/1/28 Attilio Rao :
> 2012/1/28 Ryan Stone :
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> I think what you found out is very sensitive.
>>> However, the patch is not correct as you cannot call
>>> cpuset_setthread() with thread_lock held.
>>
>> Whoops! I actually discovered tha
2012/1/28 Ryan Stone :
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> I think what you found out is very sensitive.
>> However, the patch is not correct as you cannot call
>> cpuset_setthread() with thread_lock held.
>
> Whoops! I actually discovered that for myself and had already fix
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> I think what you found out is very sensitive.
> However, the patch is not correct as you cannot call
> cpuset_setthread() with thread_lock held.
Whoops! I actually discovered that for myself and had already fixed
it, but apparently I include
2012/1/28 Ryan Stone :
> Right now, whenever a thread is spawned, it inherits CPU affinity from
> its "parent" thread. I put parent in scare quotes because as far as I
> can tell, for a kernel thread the parent is essentially chosen
> arbitrarily (it looks like it is the most recent thread spawned
Right now, whenever a thread is spawned, it inherits CPU affinity from
its "parent" thread. I put parent in scare quotes because as far as I
can tell, for a kernel thread the parent is essentially chosen
arbitrarily (it looks like it is the most recent thread spawned in
that kernel process). Inhe
12 matches
Mail list logo
