Andrew wrote:
> It isn't very nice. It probably won't crash, but it _can_ crash and when
I guess I got lucky, Cliff, when I snuck in the recursion in the
other cpuset.c routines that you were using as an example here ;).
Since the current kernel/cpuset.c recursion seems only to be in code
paths
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:39:45 -0600
Cliff Wickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:21:52PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:14:35 -0600
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wickman) wrote:
> >
> > > This patch reconciles cpusets and sched_dom
Hello Andrew,
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:21:52PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:14:35 -0600
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wickman) wrote:
>
> > This patch reconciles cpusets and sched_domains that get out of sync
> > due to disabling and re-enabling of cpu's.
>
> I get three-o
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:14:35 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wickman) wrote:
> This patch reconciles cpusets and sched_domains that get out of sync
> due to disabling and re-enabling of cpu's.
I get three-out-of-three rejects in cpuset.c. I could fix them, but I
wouldn't be very confident that th
From: Cliff Wickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This patch reconciles cpusets and sched_domains that get out of sync
due to disabling and re-enabling of cpu's.
Dinakar Guniguntala (IBM) is working on his own version of fixing this.
But as of this date that fix doesn't seem to be ready.
Here is an examp
5 matches
Mail list logo