Displaying 14 results from an estimated 14 matches for "retak".
Did you mean:
rebak
2014 Aug 04
2
[PATCH 09/19] drm/radeon: handle lockup in delayed work, v2
...an wait on radeon_fence_wait_next, etc.
>> The IB test itself doesn't needs to be protected by the exclusive lock. Only everything between radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs and radeon_ring_restore.
> I'm not sure about that, what do you want to do if the ring tests fail? Do you have to retake the exclusive lock?
Just set need_reset again and return -EAGAIN, that should have mostly
the same effect as what we are doing right now.
Christian.
>
> ~Maarten
>
2014 Aug 04
2
[PATCH 09/19] drm/radeon: handle lockup in delayed work, v2
Am 04.08.2014 um 16:40 schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
> op 04-08-14 16:37, Christian K?nig schreef:
>>> It'a pain to deal with gpu reset.
>> Yeah, well that's nothing new.
>>
>>> I've now tried other solutions but that would mean reverting to the old style during gpu lockup recovery, and only running the delayed work when !lockup.
>>> But this
2014 Aug 04
2
[PATCH 09/19] drm/radeon: handle lockup in delayed work, v2
...n_fence_wait_next, etc.
>>>> The IB test itself doesn't needs to be protected by the exclusive lock. Only everything between radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs and radeon_ring_restore.
>>> I'm not sure about that, what do you want to do if the ring tests fail? Do you have to retake the exclusive lock?
>> Just set need_reset again and return -EAGAIN, that should have mostly the same effect as what we are doing right now.
> Yeah, except for the locking the ttm delayed workqueue, but that bool should be easy to save/restore.
> I think this could work.
Actually you...
2010 Jun 19
3
[PATCH 1/1] ocfs2 fix o2dlm dlm run purgelist
...ge_lockres(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
if (!master)
res->state |= DLM_LOCK_RES_DROPPING_REF;
- spin_unlock(&res->spinlock);
mlog(0, "purging lockres %.*s, master = %d\n", res->lockname.len,
res->lockname.name, master);
if (!master) {
/* drop spinlock... retake below */
+ spin_unlock(&res->spinlock);
spin_unlock(&dlm->spinlock);
spin_lock(&res->spinlock);
@@ -208,30 +199,34 @@ static int dlm_purge_lockres(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
mlog(0, "%s:%.*s: dlm_deref_lockres returned %d\n",
dlm->name, res->lock...
2023 Mar 02
1
[PATCH v2 7/8] vdpa_sim: replace the spinlock with a mutex to protect the state
The spinlock we use to protect the state of the simulator is sometimes
held for a long time (for example, when devices handle requests).
This also prevents us from calling functions that might sleep (such as
kthread_flush_work() in the next patch), and thus having to release
and retake the lock.
For these reasons, let's replace the spinlock with a mutex that gives
us more flexibility.
Suggested-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com>
---
drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.h | 4 ++--
drivers/vdpa/vdpa...
2005 Apr 11
0
RE: [PATCH] [1/3] Xenoprof: Enabling performance profiling in Xen
>>
>> Is the nmi_sanity_check() needed? We shouldn''t lose NMIs:
>> even if we take one while doing NMI processing, we sholuld
>> retake the NMI as soon as the first one IRETs.
>>
The nmi_sanity_check() should not be needed if everything is
working fine. However I suggest we should keep it for now
until we are sure it is safe to remove it. I would also suggest
that we print a warning message in the console and/or th...
2014 Aug 04
0
[PATCH 09/19] drm/radeon: handle lockup in delayed work, v2
...at can wait on radeon_fence_wait_next, etc.
>
> The IB test itself doesn't needs to be protected by the exclusive lock. Only everything between radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs and radeon_ring_restore.
I'm not sure about that, what do you want to do if the ring tests fail? Do you have to retake the exclusive lock?
~Maarten
2014 Aug 04
0
[PATCH 09/19] drm/radeon: handle lockup in delayed work, v2
...on radeon_fence_wait_next, etc.
>>> The IB test itself doesn't needs to be protected by the exclusive lock. Only everything between radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs and radeon_ring_restore.
>> I'm not sure about that, what do you want to do if the ring tests fail? Do you have to retake the exclusive lock?
>
> Just set need_reset again and return -EAGAIN, that should have mostly the same effect as what we are doing right now.
Yeah, except for the locking the ttm delayed workqueue, but that bool should be easy to save/restore.
I think this could work.
~Maarten
2005 Dec 01
0
Errors reported by Coverity in ext3.
...te_access(handle, new_bh);
---
2. Error reported in ext3/inode.c
---
CID: 3548
Checker: CHECKED_RETURN
File: fs/ext3/inode.c
Function: ext3_clear_blocks
Description: Return value of "__ext3_journal_get_write_access" is not checked
1816 if (bh) {
1817 BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "retaking write access");
Event check_return: Called function "__ext3_journal_get_write_access"
whose return value should be checked (checked 32 out of 39 times)
Event unchecked_value: Return value of
"__ext3_journal_get_write_access" is not checked Also see events:
1...
2006 Jan 12
4
dCAp
HI, theres a lot of controversy related to this topic, my company is
thinking on me to take the astricon bootcamp, but want to know if it is
really whorty, 3000 USD is a huge amount of money to spend, plus the hotel,
food and transportation, ive already deployed some asterisk?s pbx and have
experience with it using analog tdm cards and E1/T1, queues, conference
rooms, IVR, ACD, inbound and
2007 Aug 14
12
ruby on rails web calendar
Does anyone know of a good web calendar that you can use to display
appointments, dates, anniversaries, birthdays, recurring appointments,
appointments spanning multiple days?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
2023 Mar 21
3
[PATCH v3 5/8] vdpa_sim: make devices agnostic for work management
Let's move work management inside the vdpa_sim core.
This way we can easily change how we manage the works, without
having to change the devices each time.
Acked-by: Eugenio P??rez Martin <eperezma at redhat.com>
Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com>
---
drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.h | 3 ++-
2023 Mar 02
8
[PATCH v2 0/8] vdpa_sim: add support for user VA
v2:
- rebased on Linus' tree, commit ae3419fbac84 ("vc_screen: don't clobber
return value in vcs_read")
- removed `struct task_struct *owner` param (unused for now, maybe
?useful to support cgroups) [Jason]
- add unbind_mm callback [Jason]
- call the new unbind_mm callback during the release [Jason]
- avoid to call bind_mm callback after the reset, since the device
?is not
2023 Apr 04
9
[PATCH v5 0/9] vdpa_sim: add support for user VA
This series adds support for the use of user virtual addresses in the
vDPA simulator devices.
The main reason for this change is to lift the pinning of all guest memory.
Especially with virtio devices implemented in software.
The next step would be to generalize the code in vdpa-sim to allow the
implementation of in-kernel software devices. Similar to vhost, but using vDPA
so we can reuse the