On 10/01/2015 04:12 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Chris Metcalf wrote:
So for now, if a task-isolation thread sets up a timer,
they're screwed: so, don't do that. And it's re
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > And I really want to see a proper engineering for that isolation
> > stuff, which can be done with an out of tree patch set in the first
> > place. But sure, it's more convenient to push crap into mainl
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> And I really want to see a proper engineering for that isolation
> stuff, which can be done with an out of tree patch set in the first
> place. But sure, it's more convenient to push crap into mainline and
> let everyone else deal with the fallouts.
Ye
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> >> So for now, if a task-isolation thread sets up a timer,
> >> they're screwed: so, don't do that. And it's really not part of
> >> the typical pr
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> So for now, if a task-isolation thread sets up a timer,
>> they're screwed: so, don't do that. And it's really not part of
>> the typical programming model for these kinds of userspace
>> driver
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> So for now, if a task-isolation thread sets up a timer,
> they're screwed: so, don't do that. And it's really not part of
> the typical programming model for these kinds of userspace
> drivers anyway, so it's pretty reasonable to forbid it.
There is a d
On 09/30/2015 04:25 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
I suppose if your hardware supported it, you could imagine
a mode where userspace can request an alarm a specific
amount of time in the future, and
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > Scheduling a timer for 10 minutes away is typically done by
> > scheduling timers for the max timer granularity (which could
> > be just a few seconds) and then waking up a couple of hundred
>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 09/28/2015 06:43 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Why are we treating alarms as something that should defer entry to
>> userspace? I think it would be entirely reasonable to set an alarm
>> for ten minutes, ask for isolation, and then th
On 09/28/2015 06:43 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Why are we treating alarms as something that should defer entry to
userspace? I think it would be entirely reasonable to set an alarm
for ten minutes, ask for isolation, and then think hard for ten
minutes.
A bigger issue would be if there's an RT
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 09/28/2015 04:59 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Chris Metcalf
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In prepare_exit_to_usermode(), we would like to call
>>> task_isolation_enter() on every return to userspace, and like
>>>
On 09/28/2015 04:59 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
In prepare_exit_to_usermode(), we would like to call
task_isolation_enter() on every return to userspace, and like
other work items, we would like to recheck for more work after
calling it, sin
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> In prepare_exit_to_usermode(), we would like to call
> task_isolation_enter() on every return to userspace, and like
> other work items, we would like to recheck for more work after
> calling it, since it will enable interrupts internally.
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
