search for: prolongation

Good day, I'm hoping someone can provide me with some direction to get a samba (possibly) issue fixed. After large/long transfers, usually couple hundred megs +, the disc I'm transferring the files turns into a read-only drive. I have to unmount and remount the drive for it to be writable again. I'm not a linux expert so I'm sure I didn't setup everything optimally.

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:46:04PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > BTW, I didn't test out your atomic_test_and_set() change. Did it provide a > noticeable performance benefit when compared with cmpxchg()? I've not tested that I think. I had a hard time showing that cmpxchg loops were slower, but once I did, I simply replaced all cmpxchg loops with unconditional ops where possible. The

On 05/08/2014 02:58 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:01:34AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> @@ -221,11 +222,37 @@ static inline int trylock_pending(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 *pval) >> */ >> for (;;) { >> /* >> - * If we observe any contention; queue. >> + * If we observe that the queue is not empty, >> + * return

On 06/12/2014 02:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 05:22:28PM -0400, Long, Wai Man wrote: > >>>> @@ -233,11 +233,25 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val) >>>> */ >>>> for (;;) { >>>> /* >>>> - * If we observe any contention; queue. >>>> + * If we observe

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:46:04PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > BTW, I didn't test out your atomic_test_and_set() change. Did it provide a > noticeable performance benefit when compared with cmpxchg()? I've not tested that I think. I had a hard time showing that cmpxchg loops were slower, but once I did, I simply replaced all cmpxchg loops with unconditional ops where possible. The

On 6/11/2014 6:26 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:43:52AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> --- >> kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- >> 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c >> index fc7fd8c..7f10758 100644 >> ---

There is a problem in the current pending bit spinning code. When the lock is free, but the pending bit holder hasn't grabbed the lock & cleared the pending bit yet, the spinning code will not be run. As a result, the regular queuing code path might be used most of the time even when there is only 2 tasks contending for the lock. Assuming that the pending bit holder is going to get the

There is a problem in the current trylock_pending() function. When the lock is free, but the pending bit holder hasn't grabbed the lock & cleared the pending bit yet, the trylock_pending() function will fail. As a result, the regular queuing code path will be used most of the time even when there is only 2 tasks contending for the lock. Assuming that the pending bit holder is going to get

There is a problem in the current trylock_pending() function. When the lock is free, but the pending bit holder hasn't grabbed the lock & cleared the pending bit yet, the trylock_pending() function will fail. As a result, the regular queuing code path will be used most of the time even when there is only 2 tasks contending for the lock. Assuming that the pending bit holder is going to get

On 04/17/2014 12:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:58AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> There is a problem in the current trylock_pending() function. When the >> lock is free, but the pending bit holder hasn't grabbed the lock& >> cleared the pending bit yet, the trylock_pending() function will fail. > I remember seeing some of this.. >

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:01:34AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > @@ -221,11 +222,37 @@ static inline int trylock_pending(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 *pval) > */ > for (;;) { > /* > - * If we observe any contention; queue. > + * If we observe that the queue is not empty, > + * return and be queued. > */ > - if (val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK) > + if (val

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:01:34AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > @@ -221,11 +222,37 @@ static inline int trylock_pending(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 *pval) > */ > for (;;) { > /* > - * If we observe any contention; queue. > + * If we observe that the queue is not empty, > + * return and be queued. > */ > - if (val & ~_Q_LOCKED_MASK) > + if (val

Here is another occurrence of wmTSA internal error. My time series is a short breathing cycle (2425-Cyle_9.txt). Since wmtsa functions that extract extrema seem to expect longer series than I have, I tried the folowing two tricks: 1) I prolong the 1-cycle series on both ends through duplicating the first value (on the left end( and the last value on the right end as any ties as the 1-cycle

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 05:22:28PM -0400, Long, Wai Man wrote: > >>@@ -233,11 +233,25 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val) > >> */ > >> for (;;) { > >> /* > >>- * If we observe any contention; queue. > >>+ * If we observe that the queue is not empty or both > >>+ * the pending and lock bits

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 05:22:28PM -0400, Long, Wai Man wrote: > >>@@ -233,11 +233,25 @@ void queue_spin_lock_slowpath(struct qspinlock *lock, u32 val) > >> */ > >> for (;;) { > >> /* > >>- * If we observe any contention; queue. > >>+ * If we observe that the queue is not empty or both > >>+ * the pending and lock bits

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:43:52AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > --- > kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- > 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c > index fc7fd8c..7f10758 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c > @@ -233,11 +233,25

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:43:52AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > --- > kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- > 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c > index fc7fd8c..7f10758 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/qspinlock.c > @@ -233,11 +233,25

HI All, I am using this code here: setTimeout("Sound.play(''sounds/movieprojector.mp3'');", 600); setTimeout("Effect.Appear(''slideshow5'');", 850 + 600); setTimeout("Effect.Puff(''slideshow5'');", 850 + 600 + 850);

Nadav (or anyone who is familiar with the loop vectorizer), Does the current loop vectorizer inquire about the SIMD capabilities of the target architecture when it decides whether it is profitable to vectorize a loop? I am asking this because I would like to have loop vectorization disabled for targets that don't support SIMD instructions (for example, standard mips32). Loop vectorization

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:03:58AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > There is a problem in the current trylock_pending() function. When the > lock is free, but the pending bit holder hasn't grabbed the lock & > cleared the pending bit yet, the trylock_pending() function will fail. I remember seeing some of this.. > It can be seen that the queue spinlock is slower than the ticket