Dinakar wrote:
> I'll ack this for now until I fix the problems that I am seeing
> on ppc64
Thanks, Dinakar.
Linus - do *NOT* actually apply the literal patch that Dinakar ack'd.
1) It's logic is backwards - arrgh.
2) It doesn't undo the other attempt to partially disable this.
3) It's not a
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 01:31:07PM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> ==
>
> The safest, mind numbingly simple thing to do that would avoid the oops
> that Hawkes reported is to simply not have the cpuset code call the
> code to setup a dynamic sched domain. This is choice (2) above, and
> coul
Nick wrote:
> and that it looks like what I was thinking about.
Ok - I almost have my crosstool installation healthy again.
I will actually see to it that my patch builds this time for
whatever arch's I can test on, and send this simple disabling
of sched domain mangling from cpuset-land as a real
Paul Jackson wrote:
So long as the cpuset code stops making any calls to partition_sched_domains()
whatsoever, then we should be back where we were in 2.6.12, so far as the
scheduler is concerned - right?
That's right - sorry I just meant disabling the dynamic sched
domains behaviour of the cp
Nick wrote:
> I get the feeling that exclusive cpusets should just be
> completely disabled for 2.6.13
No no - not disable exclusive cpusets - disable using them to try
to define sched domains.
That is, I hope you mean that Dinakar's patch that uses cpu_exclusive
cpusets to define sched domains s
Paul Jackson wrote:
Dinakar wrote:
Can we hold on to this patch for a while, as I reported yesterday,
Sure - though I guess it's Linus or Andrew who will have to do
the holding.
I sent it off contingent on the approval of yourself, Hawkes and Nick.
I get the feeling that the problem woul
From: "Dinakar Guniguntala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Can we hold on to this patch for a while, as I reported yesterday,
this hangs up my ppc64 box on doing rmdir on a exclusive cpuset.
Still debugging the problem, hope to have a fix soon, Thanks
Paul's patch simply constrains the scope of cpuset con
Dinakar wrote:
> Can we hold on to this patch for a while, as I reported yesterday,
Sure - though I guess it's Linus or Andrew who will have to do
the holding.
I sent it off contingent on the approval of yourself, Hawkes and Nick.
It looks like Linus is living dangerously and put it in already w
Paul,
Can we hold on to this patch for a while, as I reported yesterday,
this hangs up my ppc64 box on doing rmdir on a exclusive cpuset.
Still debugging the problem, hope to have a fix soon, Thanks
-Dinakar
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 04:15:10AM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> As reported by
As reported by Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, the previous
patch "cpu_exclusive sched domains fix" broke the ppc64 build,
yielding error messages:
kernel/cpuset.c: In function 'update_cpu_domains':
kernel/cpuset.c:648: error: invalid lvalue in unary '&'
kernel/cpuset.c:648: error: invalid lva
10 matches
Mail list logo
