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 a
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 t
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 t
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 occasion
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, wh
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 with
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 it
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 an
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. Accordi
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 ha
* 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 alternate
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
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 s
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 funct
17 matches
Mail list logo