On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 22:01:15 +0530
Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > What do you want to do about your DD1 fix? I think there are some minor
> > clashes between them. I'm happy to rebase on top of yours if you prefer
> > it to go in first.
>
> I have sent an updated version of the DD1 fix today reba
Hi Nick,
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 08:26:05PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:41:39 +0530
> Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 04:01:52PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > If not all threads were in winkle, full state loss recovery is n
On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:41:39 +0530
Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 04:01:52PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > If not all threads were in winkle, full state loss recovery is not
> > necessary and can be avoided. A previous patch removed this optimisation
> > due t
Hi Nick,
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 04:01:52PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> If not all threads were in winkle, full state loss recovery is not
> necessary and can be avoided. A previous patch removed this optimisation
> due to some complexity with the implementation. Re-implement it by
> counting
If not all threads were in winkle, full state loss recovery is not
necessary and can be avoided. A previous patch removed this optimisation
due to some complexity with the implementation. Re-implement it by
counting the number of threads in winkle with the per-core idle state.
Only restore full sta
