search for: suckage

...ll despite the command > line echo showing that they were when I did the sudo make install, but I > am forced to go into the docs directory and a man ./name-of-man-page to > read it, and mode is only mentioned briefly in the example line which > shows mode=none. That is a 10-33 torr suckage. I think that other link I sent to the sample nut.conf has all of the possible values there - not sure what happened to those comments in your original file. > This I think can be alleviated by setting up the env variable MANPATH, > which is not apparently configured. Export that and it w...

...manpages were install despite the command line echo showing that they were when I did the sudo make install, but I am forced to go into the docs directory and a man ./name-of-man-page to read it, and mode is only mentioned briefly in the example line which shows mode=none. That is a 10-33 torr suckage. This I think can be alleviated by setting up the env variable MANPATH, which is not apparently configured. Export that and it works. So put it in my .bashrc But since every other manpage on the system works without that env setting of $MANPATH, showing "/usr/local/ups/share/man:/usr/sh...

...mise to provide some lock unfairness without > sacrificing the good cacheline behavior of the queue spinlock. But but but,.. any kind of queueing gets you into a world of hurt with virt. The simple test-and-set lock (as per the above) still sucks due to lock holder preemption, but at least the suckage doesn't queue. Because with queueing you not only have to worry about the lock holder getting preemption, but also the waiter(s). Take the situation of 3 (v)CPUs where cpu0 holds the lock but is preempted. cpu1 queues, cpu2 queues. Then cpu1 gets preempted, after which cpu0 gets back online....

...mise to provide some lock unfairness without > sacrificing the good cacheline behavior of the queue spinlock. But but but,.. any kind of queueing gets you into a world of hurt with virt. The simple test-and-set lock (as per the above) still sucks due to lock holder preemption, but at least the suckage doesn't queue. Because with queueing you not only have to worry about the lock holder getting preemption, but also the waiter(s). Take the situation of 3 (v)CPUs where cpu0 holds the lock but is preempted. cpu1 queues, cpu2 queues. Then cpu1 gets preempted, after which cpu0 gets back online....

...t;>sacrificing the good cacheline behavior of the queue spinlock. > >But but but,.. any kind of queueing gets you into a world of hurt with > >virt. > > > >The simple test-and-set lock (as per the above) still sucks due to lock > >holder preemption, but at least the suckage doesn't queue. Because with > >queueing you not only have to worry about the lock holder getting > >preemption, but also the waiter(s). > > > >Take the situation of 3 (v)CPUs where cpu0 holds the lock but is > >preempted. cpu1 queues, cpu2 queues. Then cpu1 gets pr...

...t;>sacrificing the good cacheline behavior of the queue spinlock. > >But but but,.. any kind of queueing gets you into a world of hurt with > >virt. > > > >The simple test-and-set lock (as per the above) still sucks due to lock > >holder preemption, but at least the suckage doesn't queue. Because with > >queueing you not only have to worry about the lock holder getting > >preemption, but also the waiter(s). > > > >Take the situation of 3 (v)CPUs where cpu0 holds the lock but is > >preempted. cpu1 queues, cpu2 queues. Then cpu1 gets pr...

I hope this isn''t too rambly. This is sort of a brain dump of a subject I''ve been thinking about for months as I''ve used RSpec. Let''s say we''ve got a simple query method, that will find all the users in the DB older than 18. Our model could look like class User < ActiveRecord::Base def self.find_older_than(age) find :all, :conditions =>

...nfairness without >> sacrificing the good cacheline behavior of the queue spinlock. > But but but,.. any kind of queueing gets you into a world of hurt with > virt. > > The simple test-and-set lock (as per the above) still sucks due to lock > holder preemption, but at least the suckage doesn't queue. Because with > queueing you not only have to worry about the lock holder getting > preemption, but also the waiter(s). > > Take the situation of 3 (v)CPUs where cpu0 holds the lock but is > preempted. cpu1 queues, cpu2 queues. Then cpu1 gets preempted, after > w...

...he good cacheline behavior of the queue spinlock. >>> But but but,.. any kind of queueing gets you into a world of hurt with >>> virt. >>> >>> The simple test-and-set lock (as per the above) still sucks due to lock >>> holder preemption, but at least the suckage doesn't queue. Because with >>> queueing you not only have to worry about the lock holder getting >>> preemption, but also the waiter(s). >>> >>> Take the situation of 3 (v)CPUs where cpu0 holds the lock but is >>> preempted. cpu1 queues, cpu2 queues...

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 02:54:52PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > +static inline void arch_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) > +{ > + if (static_key_false(&paravirt_unfairlocks_enabled)) > + queue_spin_lock_unfair(lock); > + else > + queue_spin_lock(lock); > +} So I would have expected something like: if (static_key_false(&paravirt_spinlock)) { while

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 02:54:52PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > +static inline void arch_spin_lock(struct qspinlock *lock) > +{ > + if (static_key_false(&paravirt_unfairlocks_enabled)) > + queue_spin_lock_unfair(lock); > + else > + queue_spin_lock(lock); > +} So I would have expected something like: if (static_key_false(&paravirt_spinlock)) { while

Enhance fstype so it properly takes into account whether or not the ext4 and/or ext4dev filesystems are present, and properly handles the test_fs flag. The old code also has some really buggy checks --- for example, where it compared the set of supported ro_compat features against the incompat feature bitmask: (sb->s_feature_incompat & __cpu_to_le32(EXT3_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_SUPP) I

Morning Folks, As most of you know there were a few people who had the following three bugs: * CLOSE_WAIT: Lots of sockets in CLOSE_WAIT state. * 99% CPU: Mongrel''s getting "stuck" pegged at 99% CPU. * LEAK: Memory leak. I''ve successfully fixed these bugs or attributed them to one main cause: pstore. First, the memory leak was because of a bug in how the GC in Ruby

Hi, My environment is composed of ~250 workstations hitting a single puppetmaster server, which has been working fairly well up until now. The most recent change has been a migration of a lot of remote file copy objects which were previously handled with cfengine. client side puppetd calls to the puppetmaster.getconfig method are taking unreasonably long, on the order of 2-3 minutes. It