LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Maynard Johnson <maynardj@us.ibm.com>
Cc: cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH] Cell SPU task notification
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:19:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070119031902.GA16524@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45AE471C.8040909@us.ibm.com>

On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 09:56:12AM -0600, Maynard Johnson wrote:
> I haven't seen that the scheduler patch series got applied yet.  This 
> Cell spu task notification patch is a pre-req for OProfile development 
> to support profiling SPUs.   When the scheduler patch gets applied to a 
> kernel version that fits our needs for our OProfile development, I don't 
> see any problem in using the sched_flags field instead of notify_active.

I'll hopefull commit these patches this weekend, I'm at a conference
currently so not really able to do a lot of work.  If you need to make
more progress until than just apply the hunk that introduces sched_flags
before doing your patch.

> Yes, the yield() and the memory barriers were leftovers from an earlier 
> ill-conceived attempt at solving this problem.  They should have been 
> removed.  They're gone now.

Ok.

> I hesitated doing this since it would entail changing spu_switch_notify 
> from being static to non-static.  I'd like to get Arnd's opinion on this 
> question before going ahead and making such a change.

There is no difference in impact between marking a function non-static
and adding a trivial wrapper around it, only that the latter creates
more bloat.  So I don't think there's a good argument against this.

  reply	other threads:[~2007-01-19  3:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-01-12 22:03 Maynard Johnson
2007-01-15  2:07 ` Michael Ellerman
2007-01-15 20:21   ` Maynard Johnson
2007-01-15 22:39   ` [PATCH] Cell SPU task notification -- updated patch: #1 Maynard Johnson
2007-01-17  0:30 ` [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH] Cell SPU task notification Christoph Hellwig
2007-01-17 15:56   ` Maynard Johnson
2007-01-19  3:19     ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2007-01-26 22:39     ` [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH] Cell SPU task notification - repost of patch with updates Maynard Johnson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070119031902.GA16524@lst.de \
    --to=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=arnd.bergmann@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=maynardj@us.ibm.com \
    --subject='Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH] Cell SPU task notification' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).