search for: rescheduled

Hi List, What this means? md: syncing RAID array md0 md: minimum _guaranteed_ reconstruction speed: 1000 KB/sec/disc. md: using maximum available idle IO bandwidth (but not more than 200000 KB/sec) for reconstruction. md: using 128k window, over a total of 2096384 blocks. md: md0: sync done. RAID1 conf printout: --- wd:2 rd:2 disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:sda2 disk 1, wo:0, o:1, dev:sdb2 sd 0:0:0:0:

I can't make it to the current schedule for alternate Tuesday 1400 UTC meetings. I was hoping we could reschedule it to 1500 UTC on the same Tuesdays instead, or any other slot which could work for all. What do other members think? -- Lokesh Freenode: lsm5 GPG: 0xC7C3A0DD -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type:

On 2017?12?07? 13:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 01:15:15PM +0900, Toshiaki Makita wrote: >> Since commit 39e6c8208d7b ("net: solve a NAPI race") napi has been able >> to be rescheduled within napi_complete_done() even in non-busypoll case, >> but virtnet_poll() always enabled interrupts before complete, and when >> napi was rescheduled within napi_complete_done() it did not disable >> interrupts. >> This caused more interrupts when event idx is disabled. &...

On 2017?12?07? 13:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 01:15:15PM +0900, Toshiaki Makita wrote: >> Since commit 39e6c8208d7b ("net: solve a NAPI race") napi has been able >> to be rescheduled within napi_complete_done() even in non-busypoll case, >> but virtnet_poll() always enabled interrupts before complete, and when >> napi was rescheduled within napi_complete_done() it did not disable >> interrupts. >> This caused more interrupts when event idx is disabled. &...

Hi everyone, I'm in the formative stage of my PhD studies. My current focus is on integrated approaches to instruction scheduling and register allocation. A colleague pointed me to Evan Cheng's talk at the August 2008 developer meeting [1], where he very briefly mentioned allowing the register allocator to reschedule instructions as a "crazy idea" for the future. I

Since commit 39e6c8208d7b ("net: solve a NAPI race") napi has been able to be rescheduled within napi_complete_done() even in non-busypoll case, but virtnet_poll() always enabled interrupts before complete, and when napi was rescheduled within napi_complete_done() it did not disable interrupts. This caused more interrupts when event idx is disabled. According to commit cbdadbbf0c79 (&q...

Since commit 39e6c8208d7b ("net: solve a NAPI race") napi has been able to be rescheduled within napi_complete_done() even in non-busypoll case, but virtnet_poll() always enabled interrupts before complete, and when napi was rescheduled within napi_complete_done() it did not disable interrupts. This caused more interrupts when event idx is disabled. According to commit cbdadbbf0c79 (&q...

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 01:15:15PM +0900, Toshiaki Makita wrote: > Since commit 39e6c8208d7b ("net: solve a NAPI race") napi has been able > to be rescheduled within napi_complete_done() even in non-busypoll case, > but virtnet_poll() always enabled interrupts before complete, and when > napi was rescheduled within napi_complete_done() it did not disable > interrupts. > This caused more interrupts when event idx is disabled. > > Accord...

From: Martin Peres <martin.peres at labri.fr> This should fix a deadlock that has been reported to us where fan_update() would hold the fan lock and try to grab the alarm_program_lock to reschedule an update. On an other CPU, the alarm_program_lock would have been taken before calling fan_update(), leading to a deadlock. Reported-by: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz at gmail.com>

On Feb 3, 2010, at 6:00 AM, Gergö Barany wrote: > I independently arrived at the same crazy idea :-) and I'm wondering if > anybody ever went and actually implemented a rescheduling allocator in LLVM. > I've done some poking around the web, the mailing list archives and the LLVM > source code, but I haven't found anything suggesting that this has been > done. If anyone

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5 at fedoraproject.org> wrote: > I can't make it to the current schedule for alternate Tuesday 1400 UTC > meetings. > > I was hoping we could reschedule it to 1500 UTC on the same Tuesdays > instead, or > any other slot which could work for all. > > What do other members think? > Ok for me > -- >

We currently fill all of RX ring, then add_buf returns ENOSPC, which gets mis-detected as an out of memory condition and causes us to reschedule the work, and so on forever. Fix this by oom = err == -ENOMEM; Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> --- Rusty, please review the following patch for 2.6.35. drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 7 +++---- 1 files changed, 3

We currently fill all of RX ring, then add_buf returns ENOSPC, which gets mis-detected as an out of memory condition and causes us to reschedule the work, and so on forever. Fix this by oom = err == -ENOMEM; Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> --- Rusty, please review the following patch for 2.6.35. drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 7 +++---- 1 files changed, 3

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 08:40:58PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > From: Ville Syrj?l? <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> > > Add some kind of vblank workers. The interface is similar to regular > delayed works, and also allows for re-scheduling. > > Whatever hardware programming we do in the work must be fast > (must at least complete during the vblank, sometimes during

From: Ville Syrj?l? <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> Add some kind of vblank workers. The interface is similar to regular delayed works, and also allows for re-scheduling. Whatever hardware programming we do in the work must be fast (must at least complete during the vblank, sometimes during the first few scanlines of vblank), so we'll fire up a per-crtc high priority thread for

Will the Bay Area LLVM Social take place on July 5 (first Thursday), or be rescheduled because adjacent to the July 4 holiday? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120625/6b8626ff/attachment.html>

Oops, completely forgot to link to the work_struct version of this patch: [1] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/lyudess/linux/-/commit/f57886aebbd9631f1ee6e61b516bf73afbfe74f4 On Fri, 2020-03-27 at 16:29 -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > Adding Tejun to this thread per-Daniel's suggestion on IRC. > > Hi Tejun! So, I don't know what your experience with modesetting related > stuff >

Adding Tejun to this thread per-Daniel's suggestion on IRC. Hi Tejun! So, I don't know what your experience with modesetting related stuff is so I'll quickly explain some important concepts here regarding scanlines, vblanks, etc. If you already understand this, feel free to skip this next paragraph. >From the perspective of a computer, every time a computer monitor displays a new

...t triggers: assert(SrcReg && SrcMO.isUse() && "two address instruction invalid"); It seems to me that since the %noreg makes sense (per above), and TwoAddress wants to schedule this instruction down the block, this assert is wrong here. Should TwoAddress have a set of rescheduled instructions and not revisit them while iterating over MBB? Or is target allowed to actually build new 2-addr instructions here (seems odd)? One alternative might be to first make a set of original instructions and only process them. /Jonas -------------- next part -------------- A non-text...

Hi Tejun! Sorry to bother you, but have you had a chance to look at any of this yet? Would like to continue moving this forward On Fri, 2020-03-27 at 16:38 -0400, Lyude Paul wrote: > Oops, completely forgot to link to the work_struct version of this patch: > > [1] > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/lyudess/linux/-/commit/f57886aebbd9631f1ee6e61b516bf73afbfe74f4 > > On Fri,