On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
wrote:
> On 22 February 2018 at 18:07, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>>> With the new "while/nap" change there would still be one message
>>> per second, but the number of callbacks suppressed should
On 22 February 2018 at 18:07, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> With the new "while/nap" change there would still be one message
>> per second, but the number of callbacks suppressed should be 1
>> (unless the user has many threads doing reads).
>>
>> M
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
> With the new "while/nap" change there would still be one message
> per second, but the number of callbacks suppressed should be 1
> (unless the user has many threads doing reads).
>
> Maybe it is good to know that an application is doing somethi
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 09:39:10AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I'm certainly ok with this. I'm assuming this has been tested
I read some files using "dd bs=1" as root and non-root. Root still
goes fast, non-root is limited. Both see the same data. I can ^C the
non-root version and the dd quits
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>
> In efivarfs if the limit is exceeded when reading, we take an
> interruptible nap for 50ms and check the rate limit again.
Ok, turning that 'if' into a 'while' makes the sleeping work even in
the presence of lots of threads, and that all look
5 matches
Mail list logo
