On 02/09/2018 11:41 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8 February 2018 at 20:21, Valentin Schneider
> wrote:
>> On 02/08/2018 01:36 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 8 February 2018 at 13:46, Valentin Schneider
>>> wrote:
On 02/06/2018 07:23 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> [...]
>
>>
>> In su
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 05:52:00PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8 February 2018 at 16:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 04:05:58PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On 8 February 2018 at 15:00, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:23:05PM +0100, Vince
On 8 February 2018 at 20:21, Valentin Schneider
wrote:
> On 02/08/2018 01:36 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 8 February 2018 at 13:46, Valentin Schneider
>> wrote:
>>> On 02/06/2018 07:23 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
[...]
>
> For now I've been using those made-up rt-app workloads to stress
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 04:03:41PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 04:46:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:30:31PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:00:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > > Without this ordering I
On 02/08/2018 01:36 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8 February 2018 at 13:46, Valentin Schneider
> wrote:
>> On 02/06/2018 07:23 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> @@ -7826,8 +7842,8 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct lb_env
>>> *env,
>>> for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_group_s
On 8 February 2018 at 16:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 04:05:58PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 8 February 2018 at 15:00, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:23:05PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >
>> >> @@ -9207,13 +9231,15 @@ void nohz_balance_en
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 04:46:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:30:31PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:00:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Without this ordering I think it would be possible to loose has_blocked
> > > and not observe t
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:30:31PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:00:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Without this ordering I think it would be possible to loose has_blocked
> > and not observe the CPU either.
>
> I had a quick look at this, and I think you're right.
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 04:05:58PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8 February 2018 at 15:00, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:23:05PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >
> >> @@ -9207,13 +9231,15 @@ void nohz_balance_enter_idle(int cpu)
> >> if (!housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:00:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:23:05PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > @@ -9222,6 +9248,13 @@ void nohz_balance_enter_idle(int cpu)
> > atomic_inc(&nohz.nr_cpus);
> >
> > set_cpu_sd_state_idle(cpu);
>
> /*
>* E
On 8 February 2018 at 15:00, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:23:05PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
>> @@ -9207,13 +9231,15 @@ void nohz_balance_enter_idle(int cpu)
>> if (!housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_FLAG_SCHED))
>> return;
>>
>> + rq->has_blocked_load = 1
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:00:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:23:05PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> > @@ -9207,13 +9231,15 @@ void nohz_balance_enter_idle(int cpu)
> > if (!housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_FLAG_SCHED))
> > return;
> >
> > + rq->has_bl
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:23:05PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> @@ -9207,13 +9231,15 @@ void nohz_balance_enter_idle(int cpu)
> if (!housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_FLAG_SCHED))
> return;
>
> + rq->has_blocked_load = 1;
> +
> if (rq->nohz_tick_stopped)
> - r
On 8 February 2018 at 13:46, Valentin Schneider
wrote:
> On 02/06/2018 07:23 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> [...]
>> @@ -7826,8 +7842,8 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct lb_env
>> *env,
>> for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_group_span(group), env->cpus) {
>> struct rq *rq
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 12:46:53PM +, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 02/06/2018 07:23 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > [...]
> > @@ -7826,8 +7842,8 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct lb_env
> > *env,
> > for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_group_span(group), env->cpus) {
> > s
On 02/06/2018 07:23 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> [...]
> @@ -7826,8 +7842,8 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct lb_env
> *env,
> for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_group_span(group), env->cpus) {
> struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(i);
>
> - if (env->flags & LBF_NOHZ_STAT
Stopped the periodic update of blocked load when all idle CPUs have fully
decayed. We introduce a new nohz.has_blocked that reflect if some idle
CPUs has blocked load that have to be periodiccally updated. nohz.has_blocked
is set everytime that a Idle CPU can have blocked load and it is then clear
17 matches
Mail list logo