similar to: [PATCH] sched: provide scheduler_ipi() callback in response to smp_send_reschedule()

Hi folks, Here is the result of the latest work on the pvops front, after the x86 arch merge. From the functionality point of view, almost nothing was changed, except for proper vsmp support - which was discussed, but not implemented before - and the introduction of smp_ops in x86_64, which eased the merging of the smp header. Speaking of the merge, a significant part (although not majority) of

Hi folks, Here is the result of the latest work on the pvops front, after the x86 arch merge. From the functionality point of view, almost nothing was changed, except for proper vsmp support - which was discussed, but not implemented before - and the introduction of smp_ops in x86_64, which eased the merging of the smp header. Speaking of the merge, a significant part (although not majority) of

On 01/14/2016 04:47 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 03:33:40PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: >> Don't be fooled here by words "ordered" and "completed" - it is HW >> design items and actually written poorly. >> Just assume that SYNC_MB is absolutely the same as SYNC for any CPU >> and coherent device (besides performance).

On 01/14/2016 04:47 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 03:33:40PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: >> Don't be fooled here by words "ordered" and "completed" - it is HW >> design items and actually written poorly. >> Just assume that SYNC_MB is absolutely the same as SYNC for any CPU >> and coherent device (besides performance).

dear friend. i have mips board with BCM sibyte 1125CPU(use board sibyte 1250 swarm.) i use linux-kernel 2.6.12-rc1 download from linux-mips.com i use kernel 2.4.26 before this time, it's work ok at 2.4.26 with Ramdisk-busybox when i try to use ramdisk in 2.6.1x version, i found that ramdisk i not exist, i don't known how to use it again(i had try a patch for get ramdisk init to

On 01/27/2016 03:26 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > >>> So you need to build a different kernel for some types of MIPS systems? >>> Or do you do boot-time rewriting, like a number of other arches do? >> I don't know. I would like to have responses. Ralf asked Maciej about old >> systems and that came nowhere. Even

On 01/27/2016 03:26 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > >>> So you need to build a different kernel for some types of MIPS systems? >>> Or do you do boot-time rewriting, like a number of other arches do? >> I don't know. I would like to have responses. Ralf asked Maciej about old >> systems and that came nowhere. Even

Hi. This patchset is preparation patches for ia64/pv_ops support. They are almost trivial and mainly make kernel paravirtualization friendly. thanks, Diffstat: arch/ia64/kernel/irq_ia64.c | 1 - include/asm-ia64/intrinsics.h | 11 +++++++++++ include/asm-ia64/mmu_context.h | 6 +----- include/asm-ia64/smp.h | 2 ++ include/asm-ia64/system.h | 10 ++++++++-- 5 files

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 04:47:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > So you need to build a different kernel for some types of MIPS systems? Yes. We can't really do without. Classic MIPS code is not relocatable without the complexity of PIC code as used by ELF DSOs - and their performanc penalty. Plus we have a number of architecture revisions ovr the decades, big and little endian, 32

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 04:47:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > So you need to build a different kernel for some types of MIPS systems? Yes. We can't really do without. Classic MIPS code is not relocatable without the complexity of PIC code as used by ELF DSOs - and their performanc penalty. Plus we have a number of architecture revisions ovr the decades, big and little endian, 32

[root@iw-asterisk zaptel-1.2.1]# make gcc -I/lib/modules/2.4.21-4.ELsmp/build/include -O6 -DMODULE -D__KERNEL__ -DEXPORT_SYMTAB -I/lib/modules/2.4.21-4.ELsmp/build/drivers/net -Wall -I. -Wstrict-prototypes -fomit-frame-pointer -I/lib/modules/2.4.21-4.ELsmp/build/drivers/net/wan -I/lib/modules/2.4.21-4.ELsmp/build/include/net -DMODVERSIONS -include

Add a smp_ops interface. This abstracts the API defined by <linux/smp.h> for use within arch/i386. The primary intent is that it be used by a paravirtualizing hypervisor to implement SMP, but it could also be used by non-APIC-using sub-architectures. This is related to CONFIG_PARAVIRT, but is implemented unconditionally since it is simpler that way and not a highly performance-sensitive

Add a smp_ops interface. This abstracts the API defined by <linux/smp.h> for use within arch/i386. The primary intent is that it be used by a paravirtualizing hypervisor to implement SMP, but it could also be used by non-APIC-using sub-architectures. This is related to CONFIG_PARAVIRT, but is implemented unconditionally since it is simpler that way and not a highly performance-sensitive

Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the framework for virtualization support. Now all the comments so far have been addressed, but only a few exceptions. On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too. Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on ia64/pv_ops.

Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the framework for virtualization support. Now all the comments so far have been addressed, but only a few exceptions. On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too. Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on ia64/pv_ops.

I am running a Samba Box as a Domain Member in a Windows ADS Domain (Windows Server 2003). The Box has joined the ADS domain and the kerberos authentication works, I can see "smbd" processes running with AD user accounts. But I can not set ACLs on the directories or the files located on the share. If I change them using Windows Explorer, they either will be ignored by samba, or I get the

Hi linux/ia64 developers. Few days before Eddie posted the mail for Linux/IA64 paravirtualization. But only a few responded partially because there was no reviewable patches. Here is the patches for xen/ia64 Linux paravirtualization. The goal is to merge IA64 xen Linux paravirtualization for both domU and dom0 eventually. However the first step is to merge domU portion. As you can see from the

Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the framework for virtualization support. Please review and comments. On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too. Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on ia64/pv_ops. Currently only ia64/xen pv_ops implementation

Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the framework for virtualization support. Please review and comments. On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too. Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on ia64/pv_ops. Currently only ia64/xen pv_ops implementation

Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the framework for virtualization support. Changes from take 5 are rebased to Linux 2.6.26-rc3, bug fix ivt.S paravirtualization and multi entry point support. I believe these patches can be applied to the linux ia64 repository. On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops