On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 09:34:28PM -0800, Ryan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >
> > > I'm soliciting comments from the community. Thanks in advance for
> > > sharing your thoughts.
> >
> > Mainline your driver and you are free from such problems :)
>
> Shouldn't i
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 17:05 +1100, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > include/linux/sched.h |2 +-
> > kernel/sched_fair.c | 61
> > +--
> -
> > 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/lin
In message <1266573672.1806.70.ca...@laptop> you wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 17:05 +1100, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > > include/linux/sched.h |2 +-
> > > kernel/sched_fair.c | 61 +++
++--
> > -
> > > 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:07:30AM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > The patch below sets a smaller value for RECLAIM_DISTANCE and thus enables
> > zone reclaim.
>
I've no problem with the patch anyway.
> FYI even with this enabled I could trip it up pretty easily with a multi
> thre
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > The patch below sets a smaller value for RECLAIM_DISTANCE and thus enables
> > > zone reclaim.
> >
>
> I've no problem with the patch anyway.
Nor do I.
> > - We seem to end up racing between zone_watermark_ok, zone_reclaim and
> > buffered_rmqueue.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Christoph Lameter
wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
>> > > The patch below sets a smaller value for RECLAIM_DISTANCE and thus
>> > > enables
>> > > zone reclaim.
>> >
>>
>> I've no problem with the patch anyway.
>
> Nor do I.
>
>> > - We seem to en
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
> I noticed /proc/sys/vm/zone_reclaim_mode was 0 on a ppc64 NUMA box. It gets
> enabled via this:
>
> /*
> * If another node is sufficiently far away then it is better
> * to reclaim pages in a zone before going off n
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Balbir Singh wrote:
> >> zone_reclaim. The others back off and try the next zone in the zonelist
> >> instead. I'm not sure what the original intention was but most likely it
> >> was to prevent too many parallel reclaimers in the same zone potentially
> >> dumping out way mor
Is anyone familiar with the mv64560? I'm curious how much difference
there might be from the older mv64360 as far as setting up the PCI bus,
cpu bus, i2c, memory, etc.
I don't see any mention of this chip in current linux sources, but
there's some mention of people trying it and it's referenced i
Hi Ben,
I'd like to ask about this patch ? Should I re-submit ?
Thanks,
Breno Leitao wrote:
> During a EEH recover, the pci_dev structure can be null, mainly if an
> eeh event is detected during cpi config operation. In this case, the
> pci_dev will not be known (and will be null) the kernel w
Hi Paul, Breno,
Some confusion -- I've been out of the loop for a while -- I assume
its still Paul who is pushing
these patches upstream, and not Ben? So Breno, maybe you should
resend the patch to Paul?
--linas
On 19 February 2010 10:43, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> I'd like to ask about
* Christoph Lameter [2010-02-19 09:51:12]:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> > >> zone_reclaim. The others back off and try the next zone in the zonelist
> > >> instead. I'm not sure what the original intention was but most likely it
> > >> was to prevent too many parallel reclaimer
Hi Roman:
Sorry for the long delay, I had to fix some other stuff first, before I could
launch the test... Here is just a short intermediate result.
Am 04.02.10 20:35 schrieb(en) Albrecht Dreß:
Actually, I forgot that I have to explicitly enable libata dma on the 5200b,
due to the known sili
Hi Wolfram,
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:54 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> The list was apropriate. As all people are busy by default, getting no
> response
> is not that exceptional. If you need a fast response, you should consider
> commercial support.
I appreciate your comments.
-Ryan.
_
On Mon 2010-02-15 14:15:17, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 02/15/2010 01:04 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > It's true that most other use of it we have are global scope (local_paca
> > in r13, glibc use of r2/r13, etc...) afaik, but since r1 itself is the
> > stack pointer always, I think th
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 14:43 -0200, Breno Leitao wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> I'd like to ask about this patch ? Should I re-submit ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Breno Leitao wrote:
> > During a EEH recover, the pci_dev structure can be null, mainly if an
> > eeh event is detected during cpi config operation. In t
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 11:05 -0600, Linas Vepstas wrote:
>
> Some confusion -- I've been out of the loop for a while -- I assume
> its still Paul who is pushing
> these patches upstream, and not Ben? So Breno, maybe you should
> resend the patch to Paul?
No, it's me.
Cheers,
Ben.
Hi,
I'm currently working on a custom embedded card with ppc405ex installed.
On this card, EMAC1 is "phy-less", and connected directly to a MAC on a micrel
switch (ks8995ma).
I've tried the default phy-less mode currently supported by the core driver for
ibm_newmac, but found
this insufficient.
Hi,
Is hrtimers supported in the powerpc arch and used in embedded powerpc
drivers? I greped ktime_t and hrtimer_start() under arch/powerpc and
found not two many calls. Does it indicate the powerpc world doesn't
use hrtimers?
Thanks,
-Ryan.
___
Linuxpp
19 matches
Mail list logo
