From: Michael Neuling
We are currently out of free bits in AT_HWCAP. With POWER8, we have
several hardware features that we need to advertise. Tested on POWER and
x86.
Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputable.h
b/arch
Hi Ben,
On 02.10.2012 [10:58:29 +1000], Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 16:03 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > Phew. Here we go :). It looks to be more of a PPC specific problem
> > than it appeared as at first:
>
> Ok, so I suspect the problem is the pushing down of the loc
On 02.10.2012 [23:47:39 +0200], Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 02.10.2012, at 23:43, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > On 02.10.2012 [10:58:29 +1000], Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 16:03 +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
&g
2 0:01.43 gnome-screensav
> 1 root 20 0 2972 1856 532 S0 0.1 0:00.77 init
>
> Not sure how to explore this further.
Nor am I. You might be able to bisect it down by just putting
# CONFIG_HUGETLBFS is no set
in your .config and seeing where it was introduced, that will avo
IZE)
> - user_addr/PAGE_SIZE);
Is it just me, or does
((user_addr + iov[seg].iov_len + PAGE_SIZE - 1)/PAGE_SIZE -
user_addr/PAGE_SIZE)
not simplify to
= ((iov[seg].iov_len + PAGE_SIZE - 1)/PAGE_SIZE + user_addr/PAGE_SIZE -
user_addr/PAGE_SIZE
z
> > >
> > > = x/z + (y + z - 1)/z - x/z
> > >
> > > And the rest follows from your simplifications.
> >
> > It doesn't work:
> >
> > ((3+4+5-1)/5) - (3/5) = 2
> > ((4+5-1)/5) = 1
>
> Logic was wrong but conclu
Running 3.9-rc7-ish, tripped the following (also being seen in FC19
alpha) on ppc64:
[ 117.026196] =
[ 117.026216] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
[ 117.026238] 3.9.0-rc7+ #8 Not tainted
[ 117.026251] ---
Hi Rob,
On 19.04.2013 [14:23:21 -0500], Rob Herring wrote:
> On 04/19/2013 02:01 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Running 3.9-rc7-ish, tripped the following (also being seen in FC19
> > alpha) on ppc64:
> &g
>
> Ugh, how did I let that one through?
Don't blame yourself, blame me.
> Guys, how often mut it be said?
Hopefully this is often enough.
> PLEASE always test all code with all kernel deubg options enabled.
Yep, 100% my error. Am testing a fix now, will post soon.
Thanks,
nt to get bogged down in a 500
> mail flamewar about CONFIG_FOO_BAR being right for this or not...)
I would support such a CONFIG_ option. But in this case, it was plain
oversight / poor engineering on my part. So, while it may have helped,
doesn't make up for deficiencies on my end.
Tha
On 10.02.2008 [13:25:28 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 09.02.2008 [16:26:43 -0800], Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 14:03:28 -0500 "Miles Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Command run:
> > > find /proc | xar
Ping on this ... we've tripped the same issue on a different system, it
would appear. Would appreciate if anyone can provide answers to the
questions below.
Thanks,
Nish
On 15.05.2012 [10:01:41 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Hi Santiago,
>
> Are you still working on ibmv
Hi Ben,
On 21.07.2012 [10:52:46 +1000], Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 15:41 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Ping on this ... we've tripped the same issue on a different system, it
> > would appear. Would appreciate if anyone can provide answers
On 11.07.2005 [11:30:23 -0400], Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 10:39, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Monday 11 July 2005 17:48, Hal Rosenstock wrote:
> > > Add new helper routines for allocating MADs for sending and formatting
> > > a send WR.
> >
> > > -- linux-2.6.13-rc2-mm1/driver
On 12.07.2005 [10:50:23 -0700], john stultz wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 08:26 -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > >> > The PIT crystal runs at 14.3181818 MHz (CGA dotclock, found on ISA,
> > >> > ...)
> > >> > and is divided by 12 to get PIT tick rate
> > >> >
> > >> >14.3181818 MHz / 12
From: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: The mod_timer() statement mistakenly has a comma at the end
of the line instead of a semicolon.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
vt.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
From: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: Add a jiffies_to_nsecs() helper function. Make consistent
the size of microseconds (unsigned long) throughout the conversion
functions.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
jiffies.h | 15 ++
From: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: The core revision to the soft-timer subsystem to divorce it
from the timer interrupt in software, i.e. jiffies. Instead, use
getnstimeofday() (via do_monotonic_clock()) as the basis for addition
and expiration of timers. Add a ne
From: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: Add new human-time schedule_timeout() style functions,
along with the appropriate constants/prototypes.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/sched.h |7 ++
include/linux/time.h |
From: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: Add timespec and timeval conversion functions for
nanoseconds. Convert sys_nanosleep() to use schedule_timeout_nsecs().
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/t
On 14.07.2005 [12:18:41 -0700], john stultz wrote:
> Nish has some code, which I hope he'll be sending out shortly that
> does just this, converting the soft-timer subsystem to use absolute
> time instead of ticks for expiration. I feel it both simplifies the
> code and makes it easier to changi
On 14.07.2005 [13:54:47 -0700], Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 13:28 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > +static inline u64 jiffies_to_nsecs(const unsigned long j)
> > +{
> > +#if HZ <= NSEC_PER_SEC && !(NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ)
> > + return (NSEC
On 16.07.2005 [02:32:14 -0600], Frank Sorenson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > +extern nsec_t do_monotonic_clock(void);
> This looks okay ...
>
> > +/**
> > + * do_monotonic_clock - Returns monotonically increasing nanoseconds
> > + *
> > + * Returns the monotoni
On 15.07.2005 [14:14:25 +0200], Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > +static inline u64 jiffies_to_nsecs(const unsigned long j)
> > > > +{
> > > > +#if HZ <= NSEC_PER_SEC && !(NSEC_PER_SEC % HZ)
> > > > + return (NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ) * (u64)j;
> > > > +#elif HZ > NSEC_PER_SEC && !(HZ % NSEC_PER
On 15.07.2005 [00:28:44 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > We no longer use jiffies (the variable) as the basis for determining
> > what "time" a timer should expire or when it should be added.
On 14.07.2005 [13:40:11 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> From: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Description: The core revision to the soft-timer subsystem to divorce it
> from the timer interrupt in software, i.e. jiffies. Instead, use
> getnstimeofday() (v
s.
Description: Add wrappers for interruptible/uninterruptible
schedule_timeout() callers. Also add millisecond equivalents.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/sched.h | 11
kernel/timer.c| 125 ++
he ones that couldn't use
msleep{,_interruptible}() because of wait-queues, can also be changed to
use milliseconds.
Hrm, I also noticed I typo'd the externs in sched.h. Fixed in the new
patch.
Description: Add schedule_timeout_msecs() and add wrappers for
interruptible/uninterruptibl
On 23.07.2005 [12:30:00 +1000], Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > +/*
> > + * schedule_timeout_msecs - sleep until timeout
> > + * @timeout_msecs: timeout value in milliseconds
> > + *
> > + * A
On 23.07.2005 [12:50:45 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > Also I'd rather not add the non-msec ones... either you're raw and use
> > HZ, or you are "cooked" and use the msec variant.. I dont' see the point
> > of adding an "in the middle" one
On 23.07.2005 [13:55:58 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > > What's wrong with using jiffies?
> >
> > A lot of the (driver) users want a wallclock based timeout. For that,
> > miliseconds is a more obvious API with less chance to get the jif
On 23.07.2005 [15:04:44 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > > > > What's wrong with using jiffies?
> > > >
> > > > A lot of the (driver) users want a wallclock based timeout. For that,
> > > > miliseconds is a more obvious API with less chanc
On 23.07.2005 [15:29:42 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > jiffies/HZ is the more powerful API. The msec one which also sets
> > current to (un)interruptible is the simplified wrapper on top.
>
> So why do you want to hide it? Make the jiffie
On 23.07.2005 [19:17:37 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > > Keep the thing as simple as possible and jiffies _are_ simple. Please
> > > show
> > > me the problem, that needs to be fixed.
>
On 23.07.2005 [19:01:57 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > set_current_state(TASK_{,UN}INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > schedule_timeout(msecs_to_jiffies(some_constant_msecs));
> >
> >
On 09.08.2005 [09:56:27 -0700], Mark Gross wrote:
> On Monday 08 August 2005 08:35, Mark Gross wrote:
> > On Wednesday 06 July 2005 14:14, Mark Gross wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 22 June 2005 08:12, Bouchard, Sebastien wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Here is a driver (only for 2.4.x) I've done to p
On 10.08.2005 [23:19:01 -0400], Jeff Garzik wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >From: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> >
> >Use set_current_state() instead of direct assignment of
> >current->state.
> >
> >Signed-off-
Hello Andrew,
Sorry for the lack of a combined To:/Cc: list, but it would have been
excessive if I included everyone (I won't send all of the patches to
LKML, unless there is no other list entry in MAINTAINERS - I think that
is only 9 out of the 32 patches :)
Andrew recently added schedule_timeou
Description: Clarify the human-time units to jiffies conversion
functions by using the constants in time.h. This makes many of the
subsequent patches direct copies of the current code.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/jiffies.h
Description: Use schedule_timeout_{,un}interruptible() instead of
set_current_state()/schedule_timeout() to reduce kernel size.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
kernel/compat.c |9 +++--
kernel/signal.c |3 +--
kernel/timer.c | 18 ++-
Description: Use schedule_timeout_{,un}interruptible() instead of
set_current_state()/schedule_timeout() to reduce kernel size.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
mm/oom_kill.c |3 +--
mm/swapfile.c |3 +--
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Description: Use schedule_timeout_{un,}interruptible() instead of
set_current_state()/schedule_timeout() to reduce kernel size.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/cdrom/sbpcd.c |3 +--
drivers/cdrom/sonycd535.c |3 +--
2 files changed, 2 inse
Description: Use schedule_timeout_interruptible() instead of
set_current_state()/schedule_timeout() to reduce kernel size.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/dlm/lockspace.c |3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff -urpN 2.6.13-r
Description: Use schedule_timeout_interruptible() instead of
set_current_state()/schedule_timeout() to reduce kernel size.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/message/fusion/mptlan.c | 10 --
drivers/message/fusion/mptscsih.c |6 ++
d
Description: Use schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() instead of
set_current_state()/schedule_timeout() to reduce kernel size.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/sbus/char/bpp.c |3 +--
drivers/sbus/char/vfc_i2c.c |3 +--
2 files changed, 2 inse
Description: Use schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() instead of
set_current_state()/schedule_timeout() to reduce kernel size.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/telephony/ixj.c | 54
1 files chang
Description: Use schedule_timeout_{,un}interruptible() instead of
set_current_state()/schedule_timeout() to reduce kernel size. Also use
helper functions to convert between human time units and jiffies rather
than constant HZ division to avoid rounding errors.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan
On 15.08.2005 [20:17:52 +0200], Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 11:08:04AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Description: Use schedule_timeout_{,un}interruptible() instead of
> > set_current_state()/schedule_timeout() to reduce kernel size. Also use
> >
On 04.08.2005 [09:45:55 -0700], George Anzinger wrote:
> Uh... PLEASE tell me you are NOT changing timespec_to_jiffies() (and
> timeval_to_jiffies() to add 1. This is NOT the right thing to do. For
> repeating times (see setitimer code) we need the actual time as we KNOW
> where the jiffies ed
On 16.08.2005 [17:39:11 -0700], George Anzinger wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >On 04.08.2005 [09:45:55 -0700], George Anzinger wrote:
> >
> >>Uh... PLEASE tell me you are NOT changing timespec_to_jiffies() (and
> >>timeval_to_jiffies() to add 1. This i
On 23.07.2005 [22:12:30 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > > Jiffies are the basic time unit for kernel timers, hiding that fact gives
> > > users only wrong expectations about them.
> &g
On 31.07.2005 [01:35:35 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > > > My goal is to distinguish between these cases in sleeping-logic:
> > > >
> > > > 1) tick-oriented
> > > >
thout using the xtime_lock. Fixed as well. Patch is compile-tested.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
svcsock.c |8 ++--
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- 2.6.13-rc4/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c 2005-07-29 14:11:50.0 -0700
+++ 2.6.1
On 02.08.2005 [02:03:59 +0200], Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 01.08.2005 [15:11:48 -0600], Josip Loncaric wrote:
> >
> >>Line 589 of linux-2.6.11.10/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c is obviously wrong:
> >>
> >>
On 03.08.2005 [16:20:57 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > +unsigned int __sched schedule_timeout_msecs(unsigned int timeout_msecs)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long expire_jifs;
> > +
> > + if (t
Hello all,
While discussing milliseconds and jiffies and their inter-relations with
Roman Zippel in a separate thread, I came across an interesting and
perhaps problematic rounding issue with directly using HZ when HZ==250.
Consider requesting a 10 millisecond sleep, in jiffies. This is
accomplis
On 03.08.2005 [17:51:47 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 03.08.2005 [16:20:57 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >
> > > +unsigned int __sched schedule_timeout_msecs(unsigned int timeout_m
not do so. I was simply trying to make the function
do what it claims it does.
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > > The "jiffies_to_msecs(msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_msecs) + 1)" case (when
> > > the
> > > process is immediately woken u
dule_timeout_{,un}intr() interfaces so that
schedule_timeout() callers don't have to worry about forgetting to add
the set_current_state() call beforehand.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
include/linux/sched.h |2 ++
kernel/timer.c| 14 +
On 04.08.2005 [20:59:50 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > The comment for schedule_timeout() claims:
> >
> > * Make the current task sleep until @timeout jiffies have
> > * elapsed.
> >
>
On 17.08.2005 [12:51:17 -0700], George Anzinger wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> ~
> >>IMNSHO we should not get too parental with kernel only interfaces.
> >>Adding 1 is easy enough for the caller and even easier to explain in the
> >>instructions (i.e. thi
On 17.08.2005 [16:35:06 -0700], Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Description: Clarify the human-time units to jiffies conversion
> > functions by using the constants in time.h. This makes many of the
> > subsequent pat
On 21.08.2005 [18:12:35 -0300], Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 10:42:36PM -0700, Nish Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 8/8/05, Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > (A believe Marcelo would like to see this in 2.6.13, but I'll let him
> > > fight over that ;)
> > >
> > > *
On 27.08.2005 [18:25:44 -0700], Michael Marineau wrote:
> Thses patches resume ATI radeon cards from acpi S3 suspend when using
> radeonfb by reposting the video bios. This is needed to be able to use
> S3 when the framebuffer is enabled.
Just wanted to report that these patches lead to progress o
On 28.08.2005 [00:44:05 -0700], Michael Marineau wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 27.08.2005 [18:25:44 -0700], Michael Marineau wrote:
> >
> >>Thses patches resume ATI radeon cards from acpi S3 suspend when using
> >>radeonfb by reposting the video bios.
MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/select.c | 14 +-
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff -urpN 2.6.13/fs/select.c 2.6.13-dev/fs/select.c
--- 2.6.13/fs/select.c 2005-08-28 17:46:14.0 -0700
+++ 2.6.13-
On 03.09.2005 [18:14:48 +1000], Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 18:06, Russell King wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 06:01:08PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:58, Russell King wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 04:13:10PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > Noon
On 04.09.2005 [21:26:16 +0100], Russell King wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:10:54PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > I've got a few ideas that I think might help push Con's patch coalescing
> > efforts in an arch-independent fashion.
>
> Note that ARM con
On 04.09.2005 [21:26:16 +0100], Russell King wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:10:54PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > I've got a few ideas that I think might help push Con's patch coalescing
> > efforts in an arch-independent fashion.
>
> Note that ARM con
On 05.09.2005 [11:02:25 +0530], Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 09:26:16PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > I'd be really surprised if any architecture couldn't use what ARM has
> > today - in other words, this is the only kernel-side interface:
>
> Russel,
> I went thr' th
On 05.09.2005 [12:02:29 +0530], Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:48:13PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Admittedly, I don't think SMP ARM has been around all that long?
> > Maybe the existing code just has not been extended.
>
> Yeah, may
On 05.09.2005 [13:08:20 +1000], Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 06:37 am, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 04.09.2005 [21:26:16 +0100], Russell King wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:10:54PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > I've got a few
On 05.09.2005 [09:00:28 +0100], Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:19:28PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > Despite that, the timers as implemented on the hardware are not
> > > suitable for dyntick use - attempting to use them, you lose long
> > > term precision of the timer in
On 05.09.2005 [09:58:59 +0300], Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050904 23:38]:
> > On 04.09.2005 [21:26:16 +0100], Russell King wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:10:54PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > I'v
On 05.09.2005 [12:30:53 +0530], Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:10:54PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > First of all, and maybe this is just me, I think it would be good to
> > make the dyn_tick_timer per-interrupt source, as opposed to each arch?
>
On 05.09.2005 [10:27:05 +0300], Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050905 10:03]:
> > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:10:54PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, I am a bit confused by the use of "dynamic-tick" to
On 05.09.2005 [08:44:25 +0100], Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 12:30:53PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:10:54PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > First of all, and maybe this is just me, I think it would be good
On 05.09.2005 [09:32:21 +0100], Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:49:35PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > This is precisely what I have done. I have made cur_timer->mark-offset() to
> > return the lost ticks and update wall-time from the callee, which
> > can be either timer_in
On 05.09.2005 [22:57:14 +0530], Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:04:24AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > However, we could change "handler" to be a function pointer which
> > > returns the number of missed ticks instead, and then upd
On 05.09.2005 [22:55:01 +0530], Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 09:57:30AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > I think it's ok where it is. Currently, with x86, at least, you can have
> > an independent interrupt source and time source (not true for all
On 04.09.2005 [23:44:16 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 05.09.2005 [12:02:29 +0530], Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 10:48:13PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > Admittedly, I don't think SMP ARM has been around all that long?
> > &
On 31.08.2005 [13:01:09 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Sorry everybody, forgot the most important Cc: :)
>
> -Nish
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> In looking at Bug 5132 and sys_poll(), I think there is a flaw in the
> current code.
>
> The @timeout parameter to sys_po
On 07.09.2005 [11:13:04 +0300], Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050906 23:55]:
>
> ...
>
> > Sigh, later than I had hoped, but here is what I have hashed out so far.
> > Does it seem like a step in the right direction? Rather h
On 07.09.2005 [10:37:43 +0300], Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050905 20:02]:
> > On 05.09.2005 [10:27:05 +0300], Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > * Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050905 10:03]:
> > > > On Sun,
On 07.09.2005 [11:13:04 +0300], Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050906 23:55]:
>
> ...
>
> > Sigh, later than I had hoped, but here is what I have hashed out so far.
> > Does it seem like a step in the right direction? Rather h
On 07.09.2005 [22:37:03 +0530], Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:53:52AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >
> > - include/linux/timer.h
> > with definitions in kernel/timer.c
> >
> > OR better in
> > - include/linux/ticksour
On 07.09.2005 [23:44:45 +0530], Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:23:15AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > #define DYN_TICK_MIN_SKIP 2
> >
> > Another point. Why is this 2? I guess if you're going to make it 2, why
> > both
On 08.09.2005 [13:00:36 +0300], Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050907 18:07]:
> > On 07.09.2005 [10:37:43 +0300], Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > * Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050905 20:02]:
> > > > On 05.09.
On 08.09.2005 [14:22:13 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 08.09.2005 [13:00:36 +0300], Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050907 18:07]:
> > > On 07.09.2005 [10:37:43 +0300], Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > > * Nishanth Aravamud
On 08.09.2005 [15:08:54 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 08.09.2005 [14:22:13 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 08.09.2005 [13:00:36 +0300], Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > * Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050907 18:07]:
> > > > On 07.09.
On 06.09.2005 [14:25:14 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 31.08.2005 [13:01:09 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Sorry everybody, forgot the most important Cc: :)
> >
> > -Nish
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > In looking at Bug 5132 a
On 23.01.2008 [19:29:15 +0200], Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Applied in combination with the N_NORMAL_MEMORY revert and it fails to
> > boot. Console is as follows;
>
> Thanks for testing!
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > [c05c3
On 23.01.2008 [13:14:26 -0800], Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
> > I think Mel said that their configuration did work with 2.6.23
> > although I also wonder how that's possible. AFAIK there has been some
> > changes in the page allocator that might explain th
d would explain what Lee was seeing while
using my patches for the hugetlb pool allocator to use THISNODE
allocations. All the allocations would end up coming from whatever node
the process happened to be running on. This obviously messes up hugetlb
accounting, as I rely on THISNODE requests retur
On 08.10.2007 [18:56:05 -0700], Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > > struct page * fastcall
> > > __alloc_pages(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
> > > struct zonelist *zonelist)
> > > {
> >
properly.
>
> Comments and candidate fix to one zonelist are below.
>
> On (08/10/07 18:11), Nishanth Aravamudan didst pronounce:
> > On 28.09.2007 [15:25:27 +0100], Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > Two zonelists exist so that GFP_THISNODE allocations will be guaranteed
>
properly.
>
> Comments and candidate fix to one zonelist are below.
>
> On (08/10/07 18:11), Nishanth Aravamudan didst pronounce:
> > On 28.09.2007 [15:25:27 +0100], Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > Two zonelists exist so that GFP_THISNODE allocations will be guaranteed
>
ecked the
functionality and didn't think to check the logs, as the tests worked :/
I think it's quite clear that the WARN_ON() makes no sense now, since
alloc_pages_node() now calls __alloc_pages_nodemask().
-Nish
--
Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
IBM Linux Technology Cent
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:45:44AM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Sunday, March 6, 2005 2:36 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Any comments would be, as always, appreciated.
>
> I don't have a problem with this change, but the maintainer probably should
> have been Cc'd. Greg, does this change l
from usb/serial/gadget.c, which are basically the same
as wait_event*() but with locks, globally available via wait.h.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- 2.6.11-rc3-v/include/linux/wait.h 2004-12-24 13:34:57.0 -0800
+++ 2.6.11-rc3/include/linux/wait.h
1 - 100 of 254 matches
Mail list logo
