On 02/01/13 10:29, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 2 January 2013 06:28, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 20 December 2012 13:41, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 19 December 2012 11:57, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
If I understand the new version of "sched: secure access to other CPU
statistics" correctly, the effect
On 2 January 2013 06:28, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 20 December 2012 13:41, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 19 December 2012 11:57, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>>> If I understand the new version of "sched: secure access to other CPU
>>> statistics" correctly, the effect of the patch is:
>>>
>>> Without
On 20 December 2012 13:41, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 19 December 2012 11:57, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>> If I understand the new version of "sched: secure access to other CPU
>> statistics" correctly, the effect of the patch is:
>>
>> Without the patch the cpu will appear to be busy if sum/perio
On 19 December 2012 11:57, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On 19/12/12 09:34, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>
>> On 19 December 2012 14:53, Vincent Guittot
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Le 19 déc. 2012 07:34, "Viresh Kumar" a écrit :
Can we resolve this issue now? I don't want anything during the release
pe
On 19/12/12 09:34, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 19 December 2012 14:53, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le 19 déc. 2012 07:34, "Viresh Kumar" a écrit :
Can we resolve this issue now? I don't want anything during the release
period
this time.
The new version of the patchset should solve the concerns of eve
On 19 December 2012 14:53, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Le 19 déc. 2012 07:34, "Viresh Kumar" a écrit :
>> Can we resolve this issue now? I don't want anything during the release
>> period
>> this time.
>
> The new version of the patchset should solve the concerns of everybody
Morten,
Can you confi
Morten/Vincent,
On 6 December 2012 20:06, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> First of all i must admit, i haven't followed the discussion closely, as this
> part of kernel is still rocket science for me :)
>
> Secondly, what you said is correct Amit. But, i must say there has been a
> long time since the last
On 6 December 2012 17:31, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> [discussion not relevant to this reply removed]
>>
>> Liviu,
>>
>> I'm just saying that the use case above can't happen because the
>> fields are not updated by thread but by scheduler and it can't be
>> pre-empted by a thread while updating them. We
[discussion not relevant to this reply removed]
>
> Liviu,
>
> I'm just saying that the use case above can't happen because the
> fields are not updated by thread but by scheduler and it can't be
> pre-empted by a thread while updating them. We can have the situation
> where cpu A updates its fie
On 6 December 2012 14:46, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:25:21PM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 6 December 2012 13:06, Liviu Dudau wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:50:15AM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >> On 6 December 2012 11:27, Liviu Dudau wrote:
>> >> > On Thu,
On 6 December 2012 15:36, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 6 December 2012 19:36, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>> Even if that is the case, I'm afraid I don't quite like the way this was
>> done. IMHO, you shouldn't just revert bits of another author's patches that
>> you don't agree with.
>>
>> If there are iss
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 02:06:30PM +, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Liviu Dudau
> mailto:liviu.du...@arm.com>> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:50:15AM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 6 December 2012 11:27, Liviu Dudau
> > mailto:liviu.du...@arm.com>> wrote:
>
On 6 December 2012 19:36, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> Even if that is the case, I'm afraid I don't quite like the way this was
> done. IMHO, you shouldn't just revert bits of another author's patches that
> you don't agree with.
>
> If there are issues regarding the the patches from Vincent, I'd do the
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:50:15AM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 6 December 2012 11:27, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:32:11AM +, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > >> Hi Vincent,
> > >>
> > >> On 6 December 2012 14:50, Vi
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 12:25:21PM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 6 December 2012 13:06, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:50:15AM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On 6 December 2012 11:27, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:32:11AM +, Viresh Kumar wrot
On 6 December 2012 13:06, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:50:15AM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 6 December 2012 11:27, Liviu Dudau wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:32:11AM +, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> >> Hi Vincent,
>> >>
>> >> On 6 December 2012 14:50, Vincent Guitto
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 11:50:15AM +, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 6 December 2012 11:27, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:32:11AM +, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> Hi Vincent,
> >>
> >> On 6 December 2012 14:50, Vincent Guittot
> >> wrote:
> >> > It's look like you have disabl
On 6 December 2012 11:27, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:32:11AM +, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> On 6 December 2012 14:50, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > It's look like you have disabled packing small task in your v13 with
>> > 4a29297
>>
>> It looks like you are re
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:32:11AM +, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 6 December 2012 14:50, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > It's look like you have disabled packing small task in your v13 with 4a29297
>
> It looks like you are referring to an older version of this branch as
> the commit
On 6 December 2012 15:10, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 6 December 2012 10:32, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> On 6 December 2012 14:50, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> It's look like you have disabled packing small task in your v13 with 4a29297
>>
>> It looks like you are referring to an olde
On 6 December 2012 10:32, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 6 December 2012 14:50, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> It's look like you have disabled packing small task in your v13 with 4a29297
>
> It looks like you are referring to an older version of this branch as
> the commit id's
> don't matc
Hi Vincent,
On 6 December 2012 14:50, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> It's look like you have disabled packing small task in your v13 with 4a29297
It looks like you are referring to an older version of this branch as
the commit id's
don't match. Can you please check that again?
> In addition, I don't
On 5 December 2012 12:51, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 5 December 2012 17:10, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>>> You want me to drop eed72c8 and a1924a4 ? Correct.
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Done. Updated my repo with v13.
Viresh,
It's look like you have disabled packing small task in your v13 with 4a29297
In additi
On 5 December 2012 17:10, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>> You want me to drop eed72c8 and a1924a4 ? Correct.
>
> Yes.
Done. Updated my repo with v13.
___
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
On 05/12/12 11:35, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 5 December 2012 16:58, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
I tested Vincent's fix ("sched: pack small tasks: fix update packing
domain") for the buddy selection some weeks ago and confirmed that it
works. So my quick fixes are no longer necessary.
The issues aroun
On 5 December 2012 16:58, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> I tested Vincent's fix ("sched: pack small tasks: fix update packing
> domain") for the buddy selection some weeks ago and confirmed that it
> works. So my quick fixes are no longer necessary.
>
> The issues around the reverted "sched: secure acc
On 05/12/12 11:01, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 5 December 2012 16:28, Liviu Dudau wrote:
The revert request came at Morten's suggestion. He has comments on the code and
technical reasons
why he believes that the approach is not the best one as well as some scenarios
where possible race
conditions
On 5 December 2012 16:28, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> The revert request came at Morten's suggestion. He has comments on the code
> and technical reasons
> why he believes that the approach is not the best one as well as some
> scenarios where possible race
> conditions can occur.
>
> Morten, what is t
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 05:27:53AM +, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17 November 2012 00:02, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> > Here are the latest patches for HMP tunables to be included in the MP
> > branch for the 12.11
> > release. They depend on Vincent Guittot's patches that you have on -exp-v12
> > bra
On 17 November 2012 00:02, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> Here are the latest patches for HMP tunables to be included in the MP branch
> for the 12.11
> release. They depend on Vincent Guittot's patches that you have on -exp-v12
> branch which
> we need included in the PULL request. Testing shows that the
On 17 November 2012 00:02, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> Here are the latest patches for HMP tunables to be included in the MP branch
> for the 12.11
> release. They depend on Vincent Guittot's patches that you have on -exp-v12
> branch which
> we need included in the PULL request. Testing shows that the
31 matches
Mail list logo
