search for: withold

...en merit in pvqspinlock even with slightly slower first-waiter, so I would have happily sacrificed those horrible branches. (I prefer elegant to optimized code, but I can see why we want to be strictly better than ticketlock.) Peter mentioned that we are focusing on bare-metal patches, so I'll withold my other paravirt rants until they are polished. And to forcefully bring this thread a little bit on-topic: Pending-bit is effectively a lock in a lock, so I was wondering why don't we use more pending bits; advantages are the same, just diminished by the probability of having an ideally cont...

...en merit in pvqspinlock even with slightly slower first-waiter, so I would have happily sacrificed those horrible branches. (I prefer elegant to optimized code, but I can see why we want to be strictly better than ticketlock.) Peter mentioned that we are focusing on bare-metal patches, so I'll withold my other paravirt rants until they are polished. And to forcefully bring this thread a little bit on-topic: Pending-bit is effectively a lock in a lock, so I was wondering why don't we use more pending bits; advantages are the same, just diminished by the probability of having an ideally cont...

...of the second restriction is to ensure that OrderlyCalls is not used to infringe the intellectual property embodied in OrderlyQ, even by accident, with a view to avoiding litigation and other troubles *before* they can happen. OrderlyQ is a very specific application, and we would only consider witholding permission in cases of clear conflict. We do not wish to restrict the use of OrderlyCalls beyond these boundaries, and by asking people to seek permission before they make the investment of coding, we can co-operatively ensure and verify that their plans do not involve such a conflict. Th...

I'm looking for a solution to determine if a PSTN call to a zaptel channel was originated from a VoIP provider or not in real time. I'd like to use the callerid(num) to reverse match to the provider. Does anyone have a clue how I could do this? TIA Bart -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

...ven with slightly slower first-waiter, > so I would have happily sacrificed those horrible branches. > (I prefer elegant to optimized code, but I can see why we want to be > strictly better than ticketlock.) > Peter mentioned that we are focusing on bare-metal patches, so I'll > withold my other paravirt rants until they are polished. Well, paravirt must happen too, but comes later in this series, patch 3 which we're replying to is still very much in the bare metal part of the series. I've not had time yet to decode all that Waiman has done to make paravirt work. But as...

...first-waiter, > > so I would have happily sacrificed those horrible branches. > > (I prefer elegant to optimized code, but I can see why we want to be > > strictly better than ticketlock.) > > Peter mentioned that we are focusing on bare-metal patches, so I'll > > withold my other paravirt rants until they are polished. (It was an ambiguous sentence, I have comments for later patches.) > Well, paravirt must happen too, but comes later in this series, patch 3 > which we're replying to is still very much in the bare metal part of the > series. (I think...

...first-waiter, > > so I would have happily sacrificed those horrible branches. > > (I prefer elegant to optimized code, but I can see why we want to be > > strictly better than ticketlock.) > > Peter mentioned that we are focusing on bare-metal patches, so I'll > > withold my other paravirt rants until they are polished. (It was an ambiguous sentence, I have comments for later patches.) > Well, paravirt must happen too, but comes later in this series, patch 3 > which we're replying to is still very much in the bare metal part of the > series. (I think...

2014-05-07 11:01-0400, Waiman Long: > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> > > Because the qspinlock needs to touch a second cacheline; add a pending > bit and allow a single in-word spinner before we punt to the second > cacheline. I think there is an unwanted scenario on virtual machines: 1) VCPU sets the pending bit and start spinning. 2) Pending VCPU gets

2014-05-07 11:01-0400, Waiman Long: > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> > > Because the qspinlock needs to touch a second cacheline; add a pending > bit and allow a single in-word spinner before we punt to the second > cacheline. I think there is an unwanted scenario on virtual machines: 1) VCPU sets the pending bit and start spinning. 2) Pending VCPU gets