> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 6:04 PM
>
> >>> On 03.11.15 at 10:58, wrote:
> > On 02/11/15 14:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 02.11.15 at 09:03, wrote:
> >>> Based on above information, we propose to continue spin-timeout
> >>> model w/ some
>>> On 03.11.15 at 10:58, wrote:
> On 02/11/15 14:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 02.11.15 at 09:03, wrote:
>>> Based on above information, we propose to continue spin-timeout
>>> model w/ some adjustment, which fixes current timeout concern
>>> and also allows limited ATS support in a light way:
On 02/11/15 14:10, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 02.11.15 at 09:03, wrote:
>> Based on above information, we propose to continue spin-timeout
>> model w/ some adjustment, which fixes current timeout concern
>> and also allows limited ATS support in a light way:
>>
>> 1) reduce spin timeout to 1ms, wh
>>> On 03.11.2015 at 10:27, wrote:
> > > Based on above information, we propose to continue spin-timeout
> > > model w/ some adjustment, which fixes current timeout concern and
> > > also allows limited ATS support in a light way:
> > >
> > > 1) reduce spin timeout to 1ms, which can be boot-time c
> From: Andrew Cooper [mailto:andrew.coop...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 7:40 PM
>
> >
> > Based on above information, we propose to continue spin-timeout
> > model w/ some adjustment, which fixes current timeout concern
> > and also allows limited ATS support in a light way:
> >
>>> On 02.11.15 at 09:03, wrote:
> Based on above information, we propose to continue spin-timeout
> model w/ some adjustment, which fixes current timeout concern
> and also allows limited ATS support in a light way:
>
> 1) reduce spin timeout to 1ms, which can be boot-time changed
> up to 10ms.
On 02/11/15 08:03, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> Let's start a new thread with a summary of previous discussion, and
> then our latest experiment data and updated proposal.
>
> From previous discussions, it's suggested that a spin model is accepted,
> only when spin timeout doesn't exceed the order of a s
Let's start a new thread with a summary of previous discussion, and
then our latest experiment data and updated proposal.
>From previous discussions, it's suggested that a spin model is accepted,
only when spin timeout doesn't exceed the order of a scheduling time
slice, or other blocking opera
