On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:42:43AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> OK, I will respin v2 of the patch as follows:
>
> - Provide a watchdog_cpumask as suggested by Don.
> - On a non-NO_HZ_FULL build, it defaults to cpu_possible as normal
> - On a NO_HZ_FULL build, it defaults to the housekeeping cpus
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:42:43AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> >
> >>Then perhaps as a debug aid, expose a /proc/sys/kernel/watchdog_cpumask for
> >>folks to modify in case they want to enable the watchdog on the nohz cpus.
> >That sounds like a good idea.
>
> OK, I will respin v2 of the patch
On 04/02/2015 11:38 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 10:15:27AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 09:49:45AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
Can I ask how the NO_HZ_FULL technology works from userspace? Is there a
system command that has to be sent? How does
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 10:15:27AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 09:49:45AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > >Can I ask how the NO_HZ_FULL technology works from userspace? Is there a
> > >system command that has to be sent? How does the kernel know to turn off
> > >ticks and
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> This may come back to a question of just why one believes that
> nohz_full is a good thing in the first place. For folks that are doing
> it just to improve performance, power, etc, generally, it may not
> matter much whether the watchdog ticks
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 09:49:45AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> >Can I ask how the NO_HZ_FULL technology works from userspace? Is there a
> >system command that has to be sent? How does the kernel know to turn off
> >ticks and trust userspace to do the right thing?
>
> The NO_HZ_FULL option,
On 4/2/2015 9:35 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:30:44PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 03/31/2015 03:25 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
From: Chris Metcalf
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
cores, but it's incompatible
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:30:44PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 03/31/2015 03:25 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
> >
> >>From: Chris Metcalf
> >>
> >>Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
> >>cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 09:49:45AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
Can I ask how the NO_HZ_FULL technology works from userspace? Is there a
system command that has to be sent? How does the kernel know to turn off
ticks and trust userspace to do the right thing?
The NO_HZ_FULL option, when
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 10:15:27AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 09:49:45AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
Can I ask how the NO_HZ_FULL technology works from userspace? Is there a
system command that has to be sent? How does the kernel know to turn off
ticks and trust
On 04/02/2015 11:38 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 10:15:27AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 09:49:45AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
Can I ask how the NO_HZ_FULL technology works from userspace? Is there a
system command that has to be sent? How does
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:42:43AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
Then perhaps as a debug aid, expose a /proc/sys/kernel/watchdog_cpumask for
folks to modify in case they want to enable the watchdog on the nohz cpus.
That sounds like a good idea.
OK, I will respin v2 of the patch as follows:
On 4/2/2015 9:35 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:30:44PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 03/31/2015 03:25 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* cmetc...@ezchip.com cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
From: Chris Metcalf cmetc...@ezchip.com
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:30:44PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 03/31/2015 03:25 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* cmetc...@ezchip.com cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
From: Chris Metcalf cmetc...@ezchip.com
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
cores, but it's incompatible
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, Chris Metcalf wrote:
This may come back to a question of just why one believes that
nohz_full is a good thing in the first place. For folks that are doing
it just to improve performance, power, etc, generally, it may not
matter much whether the watchdog ticks
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:42:43AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
OK, I will respin v2 of the patch as follows:
- Provide a watchdog_cpumask as suggested by Don.
- On a non-NO_HZ_FULL build, it defaults to cpu_possible as normal
- On a NO_HZ_FULL build, it defaults to the housekeeping cpus
Ah
On 03/31/2015 06:17 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
regular scheduling events. Accordingly, just exit out immediately
from
On 03/30/2015 10:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:51:05PM -0400, cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
From: Chris Metcalf
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
regular scheduling events.
On 03/31/2015 03:25 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
From: Chris Metcalf
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
regular scheduling events. Accordingly, just exit out immediately
from any
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
> Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
> cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
> regular scheduling events. Accordingly, just exit out immediately
> from any nohz_full core.
At this point we still
* cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
> From: Chris Metcalf
>
> Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
> cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
> regular scheduling events. Accordingly, just exit out immediately
> from any nohz_full core.
>
> An
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 04:04 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> A bigger deal is the clocksource watchdog methinks. Measurement
> inspired me to make it dead yesterday.
This is why btw. Note the alternating sum/s for 1 second samples..
shooting the watchdog makes that a steady 5us.
homer:~ #
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 04:04 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
A bigger deal is the clocksource watchdog methinks. Measurement
inspired me to make it dead yesterday.
This is why btw. Note the alternating sum/s for 1 second samples..
shooting the watchdog makes that a steady 5us.
homer:~ # cgexec
* cmetc...@ezchip.com cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
From: Chris Metcalf cmetc...@ezchip.com
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
regular scheduling events. Accordingly, just exit out immediately
from any
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
regular scheduling events. Accordingly, just exit out immediately
from any nohz_full core.
At this point we still have
On 03/31/2015 06:17 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015, cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
regular scheduling events. Accordingly, just exit out immediately
from
On 03/31/2015 03:25 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* cmetc...@ezchip.com cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
From: Chris Metcalf cmetc...@ezchip.com
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
regular scheduling events.
On 03/30/2015 10:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:51:05PM -0400, cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
From: Chris Metcalf cmetc...@ezchip.com
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
regular
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 15:12 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:51:05PM -0400, cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
> > From: Chris Metcalf
> >
> > Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
> > cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
> > regular
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:51:05PM -0400, cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
> From: Chris Metcalf
>
> Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
> cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
> regular scheduling events. Accordingly, just exit out immediately
> from
From: Chris Metcalf
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
regular scheduling events. Accordingly, just exit out immediately
from any nohz_full core.
An alternate approach would be to add a flags field or
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:51:05PM -0400, cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
From: Chris Metcalf cmetc...@ezchip.com
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
regular scheduling events. Accordingly, just exit out
From: Chris Metcalf cmetc...@ezchip.com
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
regular scheduling events. Accordingly, just exit out immediately
from any nohz_full core.
An alternate approach would be to add a
On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 15:12 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 02:51:05PM -0400, cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote:
From: Chris Metcalf cmetc...@ezchip.com
Running watchdog can be a helpful debugging feature on regular
cores, but it's incompatible with nohz_full, since it forces
34 matches
Mail list logo
