On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Ok. But all these complicated things would go away if we had an option
> > CONFIG_LOWLATENCY and then everything would just follow the best setup
> > possible given the hardware. Would remove a lot of guesswork and a lot of
> > knobs.
>
> In that sense C
* Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > It may be too general for a naming. But I don't mind just selecting
> > CONFIG_RCU_NOCBS_ALL unconditionally. It's easily changed in the future if
> > anybody complains.
>
>
> I like the general nature of tha
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> It may be too general for a naming. But I don't mind just
> selecting CONFIG_RCU_NOCBS_ALL unconditionally. It's easily
> changed in the future if anybody complains.
I like the general nature of that config option since it removes the need
to con
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 07:28:05PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:11:53AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 07:04:23PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:41:07PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > > On Thu,
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:11:53AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 07:04:23PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:41:07PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > >
> > > > If there is no perform
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 07:04:23PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:41:07PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > If there is no performance issue with that I'm all for it.
> >
> > Or have a
> >
> > CONFIG_LOWL
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:41:07PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > If there is no performance issue with that I'm all for it.
>
> Or have a
>
> CONFIG_LOWLATENCY
>
> that boots up a kernel with the proper configuration?
It may be too gene
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> If there is no performance issue with that I'm all for it.
Or have a
CONFIG_LOWLATENCY
that boots up a kernel with the proper configuration?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 05:53:53PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:37:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 05:19:59PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 02:57:18PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > > I think
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 08:37:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 05:19:59PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 02:57:18PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > I think we could simplify things quite a bit if we either
> > >
> > > 1. Add any cpu
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 05:19:59PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 02:57:18PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > I think we could simplify things quite a bit if we either
> >
> > 1. Add any cpus specified with nohz_full/extended=xxx to
> > rcu_nocb. No check is then ne
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 02:57:18PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I think we could simplify things quite a bit if we either
>
> 1. Add any cpus specified with nohz_full/extended=xxx to
> rcu_nocb. No check is then necessary anymore.
Yeah in the long term we probably want that indeed.
Thanks.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2013, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > 2. Avoid the setting of cpus entirely? If full nohz mode is desired
> > then pick one cpu (f.e. the first one or the one that is used for xtime
> > updates) and then make all other cpus nohz. Set the affinity mask for the
> > rcuoXXX threads to that cp
On 13-04-08 10:57 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I think we could simplify things quite a bit if we either
>
> 1. Add any cpus specified with nohz_full/extended=xxx to
> rcu_nocb. No check is then necessary anymore.
>
> or
>
> 2. Avoid the setting of cpus entirely? If full nohz mode is desired
>
I think we could simplify things quite a bit if we either
1. Add any cpus specified with nohz_full/extended=xxx to
rcu_nocb. No check is then necessary anymore.
or
2. Avoid the setting of cpus entirely? If full nohz mode is desired
then pick one cpu (f.e. the first one or the one that is used fo
2013/3/30 Ingo Molnar :
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
>> 2013/3/28 Ingo Molnar :
>> >
>> > * Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> >
>> >> +config NO_HZ_EXTENDED_ALL
>> >> + bool "Full dynticks system on all CPUs"
>> >> + depends on NO_HZ_EXTENDED
>> >> + help
>> >> + Force al
* Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2013/3/28 Ingo Molnar :
> >
> > * Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> >> +config NO_HZ_EXTENDED_ALL
> >> + bool "Full dynticks system on all CPUs"
> >> + depends on NO_HZ_EXTENDED
> >> + help
> >> + Force all CPUs to be full dynticks. The range
2013/3/28 Ingo Molnar :
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
>> +config NO_HZ_EXTENDED_ALL
>> + bool "Full dynticks system on all CPUs"
>> + depends on NO_HZ_EXTENDED
>> + help
>> + Force all CPUs to be full dynticks. The range specified in the
>> + nohz_extended boot opt
* Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> +config NO_HZ_EXTENDED_ALL
> + bool "Full dynticks system on all CPUs"
> + depends on NO_HZ_EXTENDED
> + help
> + Force all CPUs to be full dynticks. The range specified in the
> + nohz_extended boot option will then be ignored.
> +
> +
Provide a new kernel config that forces all CPUs to be part
of the full dynticks range, except the boot one for timekeeping.
This is helpful for those who don't need a finegrained range
of full dynticks CPU and also for automated testing.
Suggested-by: Ingo Molnar
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbec
20 matches
Mail list logo
