>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2008 at 4:58 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Walker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 11:25:18AM -0700, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>> @@ -6241,7 +6242,7 @@ static void rq_attach_root(struct rq *rq, struct
> root_domain *rd)
>> cpu_clea
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 11:25:18AM -0700, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> @@ -6241,7 +6242,7 @@ static void rq_attach_root(struct rq *rq, struct
> root_domain *rd)
> cpu_clear(rq->cpu, old_rd->online);
>
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&old_rd->refcount))
> -
>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2008 at 11:59 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Walker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I looked at the code a bit, and I'm not sure you need this complexity..
> Once you have replace the old_rq, there is no reason it needs to
> protection of the run queue spinlock .. S
>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2008 at 11:59 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Walker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 10:02:12PM -0700, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2008 at 9:51 PM, in message
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Walker
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 10:02:12PM -0700, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2008 at 9:51 PM, in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Walker
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I get the following when I tried it,
> >
> > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context bash(5126) at
>
>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2008 at 9:51 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Walker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 03:35:13PM -0800, Max Krasnyanskiy wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Also the first thing I tried was to bring CPU1 off-line. Thats the fastest
>> way to get irqs, soft-irqs
>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2008 at 9:51 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Walker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I get the following when I tried it,
>
> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context bash(5126) at
> kernel/rtmutex.c:638
> in_atomic():1 [0001], irqs_disabled():1
Hi Daniel
Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 03:35:13PM -0800, Max Krasnyanskiy wrote:
>> This is just an FYI. As part of the "Isolated CPU extensions" thread Daniel
>> suggest for me
>> to check out latest RT kernels. So I did or at least tried to and
>> immediately spotted a couple
>> of is
Hi Daniel,
See inline...
>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2008 at 9:51 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Walker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 03:35:13PM -0800, Max Krasnyanskiy wrote:
>> This is just an FYI. As part of the "Isolated CPU extensions" thread Daniel
> suggest f
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 03:35:13PM -0800, Max Krasnyanskiy wrote:
> This is just an FYI. As part of the "Isolated CPU extensions" thread Daniel
> suggest for me
> to check out latest RT kernels. So I did or at least tried to and immediately
> spotted a couple
> of issues.
>
> The machine I'm runn
This is just an FYI. As part of the "Isolated CPU extensions" thread Daniel
suggest for me
to check out latest RT kernels. So I did or at least tried to and immediately
spotted a couple
of issues.
The machine I'm running it on is:
HP xw9300, Dual Opteron, NUMA
It looks like with -rt ke
11 matches
Mail list logo
