On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 17:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> OK; so as previously mentioned (Oct '13); I've entirely had it with
> skip_clock_update bugs, so I got angry and did the below.
Goody, kick butt take names ;-)
> Its not something I can merge, not least because it uses trace_printk(),
>
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:02:18AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Prevent large wakeup latencies from being accounted to the wrong task.
>
> Cc:
> Signed-off-by:Mike Galbraith
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c |7 ++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> ---
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:02:18AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Prevent large wakeup latencies from being accounted to the wrong task.
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by:Mike Galbraith umgwanakikb...@gmail.com
---
kernel/sched/core.c |7 ++-
1 file changed, 6
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 17:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
OK; so as previously mentioned (Oct '13); I've entirely had it with
skip_clock_update bugs, so I got angry and did the below.
Goody, kick butt take names ;-)
Its not something I can merge, not least because it uses trace_printk(),
but
On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 11:55 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 11:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Mike Galbraith
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I didn't cc you because I wanted it applied instantly as ultra
On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 11:55 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Mike Galbraith umgwanakikb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 11:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Mike Galbraith
umgwanakikb...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I didn't cc you because I wanted
* Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 11:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Mike Galbraith
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, I didn't cc you because I wanted it applied instantly as ultra
> > > critical, only because the chain of events might be of
* Mike Galbraith umgwanakikb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 11:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Mike Galbraith
umgwanakikb...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I didn't cc you because I wanted it applied instantly as ultra
critical, only because the
On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 11:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Mike Galbraith
> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I didn't cc you because I wanted it applied instantly as ultra
> > critical, only because the chain of events might be of interest.
>
> Ok. That was my main worry,
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 05:10:14 +0200
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Maybe it should just die as more potential trouble than it's worth. It
> has saved a pile of fastpath cycles, losing those again would be a
> shame. Accounting doesn't need to be perfect (is the enemy of good),
> but it does need to be
On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 12:00 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 06:20:36AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > Cc:
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/core.c |2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > ---
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Mike Galbraith
wrote:
>
> Oh, I didn't cc you because I wanted it applied instantly as ultra
> critical, only because the chain of events might be of interest.
Ok. That was my main worry, since I was in the process or releasing
3.14, and I just couldn't tell if
On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 09:13 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Mike Galbraith
> wrote:
> >
> > Point of being verbose was to make sure it was clear exactly how this
> > harmless little bug selectively kills large IO boxen..
>
> My point is that if you want it to be
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Mike Galbraith
wrote:
>
> Point of being verbose was to make sure it was clear exactly how this
> harmless little bug selectively kills large IO boxen..
My point is that if you want it to be applied hours before I make a
release, I need to be made aware of how
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 06:20:36AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> Cc:
> Signed-off-by:Mike Galbraith
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c |2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ void
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 06:20:36AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by:Mike Galbraith umgwanakikb...@gmail.com
---
kernel/sched/core.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Mike Galbraith
umgwanakikb...@gmail.com wrote:
Point of being verbose was to make sure it was clear exactly how this
harmless little bug selectively kills large IO boxen..
My point is that if you want it to be applied hours before I make a
release, I need to be
On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 09:13 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Mike Galbraith
umgwanakikb...@gmail.com wrote:
Point of being verbose was to make sure it was clear exactly how this
harmless little bug selectively kills large IO boxen..
My point is that if you
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Mike Galbraith
umgwanakikb...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I didn't cc you because I wanted it applied instantly as ultra
critical, only because the chain of events might be of interest.
Ok. That was my main worry, since I was in the process or releasing
3.14, and I
On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 12:00 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 06:20:36AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith umgwanakikb...@gmail.com
---
kernel/sched/core.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 05:10:14 +0200
Mike Galbraith umgwanakikb...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it should just die as more potential trouble than it's worth. It
has saved a pile of fastpath cycles, losing those again would be a
shame. Accounting doesn't need to be perfect (is the enemy of good),
but
On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 11:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Mike Galbraith
umgwanakikb...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I didn't cc you because I wanted it applied instantly as ultra
critical, only because the chain of events might be of interest.
Ok. That was my
On Sun, 2014-03-30 at 17:12 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The patch looks fine, but the changelog is so chock-full of odd
> language that I don't know what to do with the patch.
>
> Is this actually a problem in real life, or just in the drug-induced
> wonderland that Mike was in when writing
The patch looks fine, but the changelog is so chock-full of odd
language that I don't know what to do with the patch.
Is this actually a problem in real life, or just in the drug-induced
wonderland that Mike was in when writing the changelog?
Linus
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:24
NEWSFLASH: Wimpy latent scheduler buglet turns axe-murderer...
Root cause being us staying in kernel for weeks at a time during boot:
Subverting ftrace, we see below that updates _can_ be skipped for AGES,
which can make very bad things happen. It's supposed to skip ONE, as an
optimization. not
NEWSFLASH: Wimpy latent scheduler buglet turns axe-murderer...
Root cause being us staying in kernel for weeks at a time during boot:
Subverting ftrace, we see below that updates _can_ be skipped for AGES,
which can make very bad things happen. It's supposed to skip ONE, as an
optimization. not
The patch looks fine, but the changelog is so chock-full of odd
language that I don't know what to do with the patch.
Is this actually a problem in real life, or just in the drug-induced
wonderland that Mike was in when writing the changelog?
Linus
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:24
On Sun, 2014-03-30 at 17:12 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The patch looks fine, but the changelog is so chock-full of odd
language that I don't know what to do with the patch.
Is this actually a problem in real life, or just in the drug-induced
wonderland that Mike was in when writing the
28 matches
Mail list logo
