Chris,
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> 1. Rather than spinning in a busy loop if timers are pending,
> we reschedule if more than one task is ready to run. This
> directly targets the "architected" problem with the scheduler
> tick, rather than sweeping up the scheduler tick and any ot
On 10/01/2015 05:20 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Chris Metcalf wrote:
But first I want to address the question of the basic semantics
of the patch series. I wrote up a description of why it's useful
in my email yesterday:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/560c4cf4.9090...@ezchip.com
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> But first I want to address the question of the basic semantics
> of the patch series. I wrote up a description of why it's useful
> in my email yesterday:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/560c4cf4.9090...@ezchip.com
>
> I haven't directly heard from you a
On 10/01/2015 08:14 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17:17AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
diff --git a/include/linux/isolation.h b/include/linux/isolation.h
new file mode 100644
index ..fd04011b1c1e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/linux/isolation.h
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @
On 10/01/2015 08:18 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17:17AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
+
+ while (READ_ONCE(dev->next_event.tv64) != KTIME_MAX) {
You should add a function in tick-sched.c to get the next tick. This
is
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:18:42PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17:17AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > + while (READ_ONCE(dev->next_event.tv64)
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 02:18:42PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17:17AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > > +
> > > + while (READ_ONCE(dev->next_event.tv64) != KTIME_MAX) {
> >
> > You should add a function in tick-sche
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17:17AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > +
> > + while (READ_ONCE(dev->next_event.tv64) != KTIME_MAX) {
>
> You should add a function in tick-sched.c to get the next tick. This
> is supposed to be a private field.
Just t
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17:17AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/isolation.h b/include/linux/isolation.h
> new file mode 100644
> index ..fd04011b1c1e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/linux/isolation.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
> +/*
> + * Task isolation related globa
The existing nohz_full mode is designed as a "soft" isolation mode
that makes tradeoffs to minimize userspace interruptions while
still attempting to avoid overheads in the kernel entry/exit path,
to provide 100% kernel semantics, etc.
However, some applications require a "hard" commitment from th
10 matches
Mail list logo
