similar to: testing needed: log file concurrency

Attached another test program. I don't expect it to print any errors with any OS, but I'd like to confirm it for non-Linux SMP kernels. (Except for OpenBSD, it doesn't work correctly in it anyway because it doesn't support mixing write()s and mmap()) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: concurrency.c Type: text/x-csrc Size: 2256

Hi all, My Ct's box is RH 3.0 SMP kernel EM64T. They are asking if OCFS for SMP (EM64T) is available or not. In following site, we can not see OCFS for SMP (EM64T). http://oss.oracle.com/projects/ocfs/files/RedHat/RHEL3/x86_64/1.0.14-1/ ---------- ocfs-2.4.21-EL-1.0.14-1.ia32e.rpm OCFS driver for kernel version 2.4.21-27.EL and higher (EM64T) ocfs-2.4.21-EL-1.0.14-1.src.rpm OCFS driver

http://dovecot.org/tools/nfstest.c I wrote a test utility that tests different ways to flush NFS attribute cache and data cache. Please test in your NFS setup and show me the results, so I can make Dovecot v1.1 works well with NFS. Run the test several times (3 should be enough) to make sure the output stays the same, because the attribute cache flushes might incorrectly say "OK". And

Do you have anything detailing what the goal of each phase in Xenrt is? Phases 4 and 5 seem to be pretty much identical. Thanks, Paul Larson _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Hello! I'm setting up Asterisk on a new system. In the past, all of my Asterisk boxes have either been embedded-style systems that do not supoort APIC, or multi-processor systems where APIC comes along with SMP. However, now I'm trying to install Asterisk on a single CPU (and non-HT) system that does support APIC (A P4 Northwood an Intel 845 chipset). I've used both RHEL3 and

Hello all, Last year I submitted a bug regarding the use of 'parallel_for_each' and Windows Concurrency Library. We have found that when compiling in Visual Studio 2015 and 2017 with /MTd, the use of 'concurrency::parallel_for_each' can cause unhandled exceptions when the program is exiting. https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34976 After having some difficulty clarifying this

On Tuesday 27 April 2010 13:16:14 David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 27 April 2010 12:16:26 Renato Golin wrote: > > I'm not against enhancing the compiler to that point, I just think > > that you're digging too deep and Balrog might show up unexpectedly. > > Thread issues can be daunting by themselves, automatically creating > > threaded code is a recipe to

On 27 April 2010 19:36, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > And it's not the disaster you fear.  It's much easier for the compiler > to reason about threads it creates.  It gets to control the model. I actually fear the well-defined thread implementation of the compiler interacting with chaotic threads from user code... ;) cheers, --renato http://systemcall.org/

Hi Booting my Xen Dom0 on Debian Etch (Kernel is the prebuild one from bits.xensource.com), I found that only one cpu core (of two: dual core) is recognized by the (dom0-)Kernel. Googling this issue, I found on xen-devel-list that xen kernel is named smp but isn''t really doing so. Is there any (prebuild) kernel that I can use for smp? Thanks Gregor Reich

Hi all, I have been trying to understand the use of undef in both sequential and concurrent programs. >From the LLVM Language Reference Manual, I see the following definition of undef. "Undef can be used anywhere a constant is expected, and indicates that the user of the value may receive an unspecified bit-pattern". LLVM Language Reference manual also demonstrates how optimizers

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Santosh Nagarakatte <santosh.nagarakatte at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have been trying to understand the use of undef in both sequential > and concurrent programs. > > >From the LLVM Language Reference Manual, I see the following > definition of undef. > "Undef can be used anywhere a constant is expected, and indicates

Hi, looking at the discussions about atomic operations, we could also (and perhaps we should) discuss how a concurrency-aware memory model for LLVM should look like. One could draw the analogy that the mapping between algorithm-level concurrent algorithms and the HW atomic operations is like compiling to a specific architecture. There are several optimizations possible that are directly

hi all: hello. I would like to ask a question about concurrency. Whether libvirt can achieve at the same time open 200 virtual machines. I try to open 200 virtual machines at the same time. oh on. when i am connected one of the virtual machines, i waited for a long time. I guess libvirt can't achieve concurrent operaction. I wish I could get a real result as soon as possible. thank

On 04/08/2015 01:42 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 05:47:42PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> This change makes it so that instead of using smp_wmb/rmb which varies >> depending on the kernel configuration we can can use dma_wmb/rmb which for >> most architectures should be equal to or slightly more strict than >> smp_wmb/rmb. >> >>

On 04/08/2015 01:42 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 05:47:42PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: >> This change makes it so that instead of using smp_wmb/rmb which varies >> depending on the kernel configuration we can can use dma_wmb/rmb which for >> most architectures should be equal to or slightly more strict than >> smp_wmb/rmb. >> >>

Thank you so much for tracking down such a tricky issue. I agree that we should disable it. Should we just delete the ifdefs? We could in theory disable it just for debug builds, but that could create some hard to reproduce bugs. Cheers, Rafael Owen Reynolds via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Hello all, > > Last year I submitted a bug regarding the use of

Samba Gurus, How can the number of concurrent connections to a Samba share be limited. Say for example you have an article of software for which you only have 5 licences. When all five seats are used and 6th connection is attempted the user cannot connect. Regards, Paul Ketelaar Paul Ketelaar, Assoc. Dip. Eng. (Elec) paulk@ketelaar.com.au http://www.ketelaar.com.au

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Santosh Nagarakatte >> <santosh.nagarakatte at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have been trying to understand the use of undef in

We are *days* away from the official 0.3.13 release, which will be followed quickly by 0.4 code named Enterprisey Edition 1.2. This latest pre-release update closes off the last of the annoying bugs, and adds one very nasty feature people should check out before we release. Read about Katanas below. ** This release doesn''t have win32 yet. That''ll be uploaded Monday. ** WHAT

So here''s a random question: if a (Ruby) multi-threaded rails server could exist (bug free), would it be faster than using a mongrel cluster? (I.e. 10 mongrel processes versus 10 Ruby threads). I''m not sure if it would. RAM it might save, though. Any thoughts? -Roger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: