On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 02:02:29PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 23/04/2015 13:51, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >>> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174664
> >> >
> >> > That was the missing volatile in an asm. Older compilers didn't catch
> >> > it. :(
> > How do you know th
On 23/04/2015 13:51, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174664
>> >
>> > That was the missing volatile in an asm. Older compilers didn't catch
>> > it. :(
> How do you know that? It looks like memory corruption (look at the
> pattern at the end).
I susp
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:13:23AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 22/04/2015 23:21, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:27:58PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 17/04/2015 22:18, Marcelo Tosatti
On 23/04/2015 00:55, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:01:49PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22/04/2015 22:56, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> But then why was the task migration notifier even in Jeremy's original
> code for Xen?
>>> To cover for the vcpu1 -> vcpu2 -
On 22/04/2015 23:21, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:27:58PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17/04/2015 22:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
The bug which this is fixing is very rare, have no memory of a repo
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:01:49PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 22/04/2015 22:56, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> > But then why was the task migration notifier even in Jeremy's original
> >> > code for Xen?
> > To cover for the vcpu1 -> vcpu2 -> vcpu1 case, i believe.
>
> Ok, to cover it f
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:27:58PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 17/04/2015 22:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> The bug which this is fixing is very rare, have no memory of a report.
> >>
> >> In fact, its even difficult to crea
On 22/04/2015 22:56, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> > But then why was the task migration notifier even in Jeremy's original
>> > code for Xen?
> To cover for the vcpu1 -> vcpu2 -> vcpu1 case, i believe.
Ok, to cover it for non-synchronized TSC. While KVM requires
synchronized TSC.
> > If that's t
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 06:59:04PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 17/04/2015 22:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > The bug which this is fixing is very rare, have no memory of a report.
> >
> > In fact, its even difficult to create a synthetic reproducer.
>
> But then why was the task migrati
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 17/04/2015 22:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> The bug which this is fixing is very rare, have no memory of a report.
>>
>> In fact, its even difficult to create a synthetic reproducer.
>
> But then why was the task migration notifier eve
On 17/04/2015 22:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> The bug which this is fixing is very rare, have no memory of a report.
>
> In fact, its even difficult to create a synthetic reproducer.
But then why was the task migration notifier even in Jeremy's original
code for Xen? Was it supposed to work ev
On 18/04/2015 00:25, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Isn't the *whole* point of pvclock_clocksource_read() to be a native
>> rdtsc with scaling? How does it cause that kind of insane pain?
It's possible that your machine ends up with PVCLOCK_TSC_STABLE_BIT
clear, so you get an atomic cmpxchg in additi
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 03:25:28PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Andy Lutomirski
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Muahaha. The auditors have invaded your system. (I did my little
> >> benchmark with a more sens
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Muahaha. The auditors have invaded your system. (I did my little
>> benchmark with a more sensible configuration -- see way below).
>>
>> Can you send the output of:
>>
>> # au
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Muahaha. The auditors have invaded your system. (I did my little
> benchmark with a more sensible configuration -- see way below).
>
> Can you send the output of:
>
> # auditctl -s
> # auditctl -l
# auditctl -s
enabled 1
flag 1
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On my box, vclock_gettime using kvm-clock is about 40 ns. An empty
>> syscall is about 33 ns. clock_gettime *should* be around 17 ns.
>>
>> The clock_gettime syscall is about 7
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On my box, vclock_gettime using kvm-clock is about 40 ns. An empty
> syscall is about 33 ns. clock_gettime *should* be around 17 ns.
>
> The clock_gettime syscall is about 73 ns.
>
> Could we figure out why clock_gettime (the syscall) i
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 09:57:12PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> From 4eb9d7132e1990c0586f28af3103675416d38974 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> >> From: Paolo Bonzini
>> >> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:57:34 +0200
>> >> Subject: [PATCH]
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 09:57:12PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> >> From 4eb9d7132e1990c0586f28af3103675416d38974 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Paolo Bonzini
> >> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:57:34 +0200
> >> Subject: [PATCH] sched: add CONFIG_TASK_MIGRATION_NOTIFIER
> >>
> >> The task mi
>> From 4eb9d7132e1990c0586f28af3103675416d38974 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Paolo Bonzini
>> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:57:34 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] sched: add CONFIG_TASK_MIGRATION_NOTIFIER
>>
>> The task migration notifier is only used in x86 paravirt. Make it
>> possible to compile
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 03:38:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 17/04/2015 15:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 02:46:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> >> On 17/04/2015 12:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >>> Also,
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 03:38:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 17/04/2015 15:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 02:46:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 17/04/2015 12:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> Also, it looks like you already do exactly this for other things, look
On 17/04/2015 15:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 03:38:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> The path this notifier is called from has nothing to do with those
>>> costs.
>
> Its attributed to the entity doing the migration, which can be the
> wakeup path or a softirq. And we v
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 03:38:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > The path this notifier is called from has nothing to do with those
> > costs.
>
> How not? The task is going to incur those costs, it's not like half
> a dozen extra instruction make any difference. But anyway...
Its attributed
On 17/04/2015 15:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 02:46:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 17/04/2015 12:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> Also, it looks like you already do exactly this for other things, look
>>> at:
>>>
>>> kvm_sched_in()
>>> kvm_arch_vcpu_load()
>>>
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 02:46:57PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 17/04/2015 12:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Also, it looks like you already do exactly this for other things, look
> > at:
> >
> > kvm_sched_in()
> > kvm_arch_vcpu_load()
> > if (unlikely(vcpu->cpu != cpu) ... )
On 17/04/2015 12:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Also, it looks like you already do exactly this for other things, look
> at:
>
> kvm_sched_in()
> kvm_arch_vcpu_load()
> if (unlikely(vcpu->cpu != cpu) ... )
>
> So no, I don't believe for one second you need this.
You're mis
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:38:07PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 17/04/2015 12:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Now you make everybody pay for your crap, x86-64 paravirt or not. Keep
> > the cost by those who need it.
> >
> > Please take it out, ASAP.
>
> I'll just implement the static key.
On 17/04/2015 12:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Now you make everybody pay for your crap, x86-64 paravirt or not. Keep
> the cost by those who need it.
>
> Please take it out, ASAP.
I'll just implement the static key.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:09:49PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 17/04/2015 11:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:52:38AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 05:01:29PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>> include/linux/sched.h
On 17/04/2015 11:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:52:38AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 05:01:29PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> include/linux/sched.h |8 +
>>> kernel/sched/core.c|
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:52:38AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 05:01:29PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > include/linux/sched.h |8 +
> > kernel/sched/core.c| 15 +
>
> Can you please not puke over the sc
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 05:01:29PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> include/linux/sched.h |8 +
> kernel/sched/core.c| 15 +
Can you please not puke over the scheduler without Acks from at least
one maintainer?
I complained about thi
33 matches
Mail list logo
