On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 3:23 PM Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>
> Might take some time to get a system and run tests. We actually had
> difficulty recreating it before this patch too, so it's kind of
> hard to say _that_ was the exact case that previously ran badly and
> is now fixed. We thought just the
Excerpts from Linus Torvalds's message of March 18, 2021 5:26 am:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 3:44 AM Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>>
>> Argh, because I didn't test small. Sorry I had the BASE_SMALL setting in
>> another patch and thought it would be a good idea to mash them together.
>> In hindsight prob
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 3:44 AM Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>
> Argh, because I didn't test small. Sorry I had the BASE_SMALL setting in
> another patch and thought it would be a good idea to mash them together.
> In hindsight probably not even if it did build.
I was going to complain about that code
Hi Nicholas,
I love your patch! Perhaps something to improve:
[auto build test WARNING on linux/master]
[also build test WARNING on linus/master hnaz-linux-mm/master v5.12-rc3
next-20210317]
[cannot apply to tip/sched/core]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
Hi Nicholas,
I love your patch! Yet something to improve:
[auto build test ERROR on linux/master]
[also build test ERROR on tip/sched/core linus/master v5.12-rc3 next-20210317]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--
Excerpts from Rasmus Villemoes's message of March 17, 2021 8:12 pm:
> On 17/03/2021 08.54, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>
>> +#if CONFIG_BASE_SMALL
>> +static const unsigned int page_wait_table_bits = 4;
>> static wait_queue_head_t page_wait_table[PAGE_WAIT_TABLE_SIZE]
>> __cacheline_aligned;
>
>>
On 17/03/2021 08.54, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> +#if CONFIG_BASE_SMALL
> +static const unsigned int page_wait_table_bits = 4;
> static wait_queue_head_t page_wait_table[PAGE_WAIT_TABLE_SIZE]
> __cacheline_aligned;
>
> + if (!CONFIG_BASE_SMALL) {
> + page_wait_table = alloc_large
Excerpts from Ingo Molnar's message of March 17, 2021 6:38 pm:
>
> * Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>
>> The page waitqueue hash is a bit small (256 entries) on very big systems. A
>> 16 socket 1536 thread POWER9 system was found to encounter hash collisions
>> and excessive time in waitqueue locking at
* Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> The page waitqueue hash is a bit small (256 entries) on very big systems. A
> 16 socket 1536 thread POWER9 system was found to encounter hash collisions
> and excessive time in waitqueue locking at times. This was intermittent and
> hard to reproduce easily with the s
The page waitqueue hash is a bit small (256 entries) on very big systems. A
16 socket 1536 thread POWER9 system was found to encounter hash collisions
and excessive time in waitqueue locking at times. This was intermittent and
hard to reproduce easily with the setup we had (very little real IO
capa
10 matches
Mail list logo
