On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> 2015-06-28 1:08 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>>> Akinobu Mita wrote:
2015-06-26 0:40 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:49:43 +0900
> Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> For
2015-06-28 1:08 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> Akinobu Mita wrote:
>>> 2015-06-26 0:40 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
>>> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:49:43 +0900
>>> > Akinobu Mita wrote:
>>> >> For example, there is a single hw queue (hctx) and two CPU queues
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> 2015-06-26 0:40 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
>> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:49:43 +0900
>> > Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> >> For example, there is a single hw queue (hctx) and two CPU queues
>> >> (ctx0 for CPU0, and ctx1 for CPU1). N
Akinobu Mita wrote:
> 2015-06-26 0:40 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:49:43 +0900
> > Akinobu Mita wrote:
> >> For example, there is a single hw queue (hctx) and two CPU queues
> >> (ctx0 for CPU0, and ctx1 for CPU1). Now CPU1 is just onlined and
> >> a request is inserted into c
2015-06-26 0:40 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:49:43 +0900
> Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> For example, there is a single hw queue (hctx) and two CPU queues
>> (ctx0 for CPU0, and ctx1 for CPU1). Now CPU1 is just onlined and
>> a request is inserted into ctx1->rq_list and set bit0 in pend
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:49:43 +0900
Akinobu Mita wrote:
> 2015-06-25 17:07 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Akinobu Mita
> > wrote:
> >> 2015-06-25 1:24 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
> >>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Akinobu Mita
> >>> wrote:
> Hi Ming,
>
> >>>
2015-06-25 17:07 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> 2015-06-25 1:24 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Akinobu Mita
>>> wrote:
Hi Ming,
2015-06-24 18:46 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:52 PM,
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> 2015-06-25 1:24 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Akinobu Mita
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Ming,
>>>
>>> 2015-06-24 18:46 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Akinobu Mita
wrote:
> ctx->index_hw
2015-06-25 1:24 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> Hi Ming,
>>
>> 2015-06-24 18:46 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Akinobu Mita
>>> wrote:
ctx->index_hw is zero for the CPUs which have never been onlined since
the b
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> Hi Ming,
>
> 2015-06-24 18:46 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>>> ctx->index_hw is zero for the CPUs which have never been onlined since
>>> the block queue was initialized. If one of those CPUs
Hi Ming,
2015-06-24 18:46 GMT+09:00 Ming Lei :
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> ctx->index_hw is zero for the CPUs which have never been onlined since
>> the block queue was initialized. If one of those CPUs is hotadded and
>> starts handling request before new mappings
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> ctx->index_hw is zero for the CPUs which have never been onlined since
> the block queue was initialized. If one of those CPUs is hotadded and
> starts handling request before new mappings are established, pending
Could you explain a bit wha
ctx->index_hw is zero for the CPUs which have never been onlined since
the block queue was initialized. If one of those CPUs is hotadded and
starts handling request before new mappings are established, pending
bitmap is not correctly marked for inserted requests as ctx->index_hw
is still zero. So
13 matches
Mail list logo
