On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:59:36AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
> On 9/12/2013 10:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
> >>> On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 08:48:33PM +0100, Hedi Berriche wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 19:59 Mike Travis wrote:
> | On 9/12/2013 10:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> |
> | > But what is it that you are looking for? If you want to silence it
> | > completely, the rcu_cpu_stall_suppress boot/sysfs
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 19:59 Mike Travis wrote:
| On 9/12/2013 10:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
|
| > But what is it that you are looking for? If you want to silence it
| > completely, the rcu_cpu_stall_suppress boot/sysfs parameter is what
| > you want to use.
|
| We have by default rcutree.rc
On 9/12/2013 10:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
>>> On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
> F
On 9/12/2013 11:35 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:27:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:27:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
> > > On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mik
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
> > On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
> > >> For performance reasons, the NMI handler may be dis
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
>
>
> On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
> >> For performance reasons, the NMI handler may be disabled to lessen the
> >> performance impact caused by the multiple
On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
>> For performance reasons, the NMI handler may be disabled to lessen the
>> performance impact caused by the multiple perf tools running concurently.
>> If the system nmi command is issued w
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
> For performance reasons, the NMI handler may be disabled to lessen the
> performance impact caused by the multiple perf tools running concurently.
> If the system nmi command is issued when the UV NMI handler is disabled,
> the "Dazed a
10 matches
Mail list logo