On 7 January 2014 14:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 01:48:02PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> *But wouldn't it make sense if we can tell scheduler that don't queue
>> these works on a CPU that is running in NO_HZ_FULL mode?*
>
> No,.. that's the wrong way around.
Hmm.. Just
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 01:48:02PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> *But wouldn't it make sense if we can tell scheduler that don't queue
> these works on a CPU that is running in NO_HZ_FULL mode?*
No,.. that's the wrong way around.
> Also any suggestions on how to get rid of __prandom_timer events
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 01:48:02PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
*But wouldn't it make sense if we can tell scheduler that don't queue
these works on a CPU that is running in NO_HZ_FULL mode?*
No,.. that's the wrong way around.
Also any suggestions on how to get rid of __prandom_timer events on
On 7 January 2014 14:17, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 01:48:02PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
*But wouldn't it make sense if we can tell scheduler that don't queue
these works on a CPU that is running in NO_HZ_FULL mode?*
No,.. that's the wrong way around.
On 23 December 2013 13:48, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Wrong time, probably many people on vacation now. But I am working, so
> will continue reporting my problems, in case somebody is around :)
Ping!! (Probably many people would be back from their vacations.)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On 23 December 2013 13:48, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Wrong time, probably many people on vacation now. But I am working, so
will continue reporting my problems, in case somebody is around :)
Ping!! (Probably many people would be back from their vacations.)
--
To unsubscribe
Adding Ingo/Peter..
On 18 December 2013 20:03, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 18 December 2013 19:21, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Ah, I see. So you're basically asking why we can't evaluate whether to
>> turn off the tick more often, for example right after the workqueues are
>> done. I suppose Frederic
Adding Ingo/Peter..
On 18 December 2013 20:03, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 18 December 2013 19:21, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Ah, I see. So you're basically asking why we can't evaluate whether to
turn off the tick more often, for example right after the
On 18 December 2013 19:21, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Ah, I see. So you're basically asking why we can't evaluate whether to
> turn off the tick more often, for example right after the workqueues are
> done. I suppose Frederic may have some views on that, but there's
> likely additional overhead
Viresh Kumar writes:
> On 17 December 2013 22:05, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> For future reference, for generating email friendly trace output for
>> discussion like this, you can use something like:
>>
>>trace-cmd report --cpu=1 trace.dat
>
> Okay..
>
>>> And after that the next event comes
Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org writes:
On 17 December 2013 22:05, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
For future reference, for generating email friendly trace output for
discussion like this, you can use something like:
trace-cmd report --cpu=1 trace.dat
Okay..
And after
On 18 December 2013 19:21, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
Ah, I see. So you're basically asking why we can't evaluate whether to
turn off the tick more often, for example right after the workqueues are
done. I suppose Frederic may have some views on that, but there's
likely
On 17 December 2013 22:05, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> For future reference, for generating email friendly trace output for
> discussion like this, you can use something like:
>
>trace-cmd report --cpu=1 trace.dat
Okay..
>> And after that the next event comes after 5 Seconds.
>>
>> And so I was
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:35:39AM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Viresh Kumar writes:
>
> > Sorry for the delay, was on holidays..
> >
> > On 11 December 2013 18:52, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:57:37PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >>> - again got arch_timer
Viresh Kumar writes:
> Sorry for the delay, was on holidays..
>
> On 11 December 2013 18:52, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:57:37PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> - again got arch_timer interrupt after 5 ms (HZ=200)
>>
>> Right, looking at the details, the 2nd
Sorry for the delay, was on holidays..
On 11 December 2013 18:52, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:57:37PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> - again got arch_timer interrupt after 5 ms (HZ=200)
>
> Right, looking at the details, the 2nd interrupt is caused by workqueue
>
Sorry for the delay, was on holidays..
On 11 December 2013 18:52, Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:57:37PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
- again got arch_timer interrupt after 5 ms (HZ=200)
Right, looking at the details, the 2nd interrupt is caused by
Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org writes:
Sorry for the delay, was on holidays..
On 11 December 2013 18:52, Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:57:37PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
- again got arch_timer interrupt after 5 ms (HZ=200)
Right, looking at
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:35:39AM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org writes:
Sorry for the delay, was on holidays..
On 11 December 2013 18:52, Frederic Weisbecker fweis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:57:37PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
-
On 17 December 2013 22:05, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
For future reference, for generating email friendly trace output for
discussion like this, you can use something like:
trace-cmd report --cpu=1 trace.dat
Okay..
And after that the next event comes after 5 Seconds.
And so
Tejun Heo writes:
> Hey, guys.
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 02:22:14PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> I fear I don't understand your question. Do you mean why don't we prevent
>> from
>> that bdi writeback work to run when we are in full dynticks mode?
>>
>> We can't just ignore
Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org writes:
Hey, guys.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 02:22:14PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
I fear I don't understand your question. Do you mean why don't we prevent
from
that bdi writeback work to run when we are in full dynticks mode?
We can't just ignore
Hey, guys.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 02:22:14PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> I fear I don't understand your question. Do you mean why don't we prevent from
> that bdi writeback work to run when we are in full dynticks mode?
>
> We can't just ignore workqueues and timers callback when they
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:57:37PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Frederic/Kevin,
>
> I was doing some work where I was required to use NO_HZ_FULL
> on core 1 on a dual core ARM machine.
>
> I observed that I was able to isolate the second core using cpusets
> but whenever the tick occurs, it
On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:57:37PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Hi Frederic/Kevin,
I was doing some work where I was required to use NO_HZ_FULL
on core 1 on a dual core ARM machine.
I observed that I was able to isolate the second core using cpusets
but whenever the tick occurs, it occurs
Hey, guys.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 02:22:14PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
I fear I don't understand your question. Do you mean why don't we prevent from
that bdi writeback work to run when we are in full dynticks mode?
We can't just ignore workqueues and timers callback when they are
26 matches
Mail list logo
