On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:52:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> > > So you could cheat and set it in
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:52:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > > So you could cheat and set it in pick_next_task_idle() and clear in
>> > > put_prev_task_idle(), that
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:52:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > So you could cheat and set it in pick_next_task_idle() and clear in
> > > put_prev_task_idle(), that way the entire idle loop, when running has it
> > > set.
> >
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:52:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > So you could cheat and set it in pick_next_task_idle() and clear in
> > put_prev_task_idle(), that way the entire idle loop, when running has it
> > set.
> >
>
> Isn't that a little late for sched_ttwu_pending? I guess it could
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:05:03AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:43:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >> We need rq->curr, rq->idle 'sleeps' with
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:05:03AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:43:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> We need rq->curr, rq->idle 'sleeps' with polling set and nr clear, but
> >> it obviously has no effect
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:43:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> We need rq->curr, rq->idle 'sleeps' with polling set and nr clear, but
>> it obviously has no effect setting that if its not actually the current
>> task.
>>
>> Touching
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:43:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> We need rq->curr, rq->idle 'sleeps' with polling set and nr clear, but
> it obviously has no effect setting that if its not actually the current
> task.
>
> Touching rq->curr needs holding rcu_read_lock() though, to make sure the
>
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:40:26PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> You're testing polling on the task being woken, which cannot possibly
> succeed: the only tasks that have any business polling are the idle
> tasks. Something like this seems to help:
>
> static void ttwu_queue_remote(struct
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:40:26PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Bugs found so far:
>
> defined(SMP) should be defined(CONFIG_SMP)
>
> You're testing polling on the task being woken, which cannot possibly
> succeed: the only tasks that have any business polling are the idle
> tasks. Something
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 05:01:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:58:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >> ---
>> >> diff --git
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 05:01:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:58:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
---
diff
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:40:26PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Bugs found so far:
defined(SMP) should be defined(CONFIG_SMP)
You're testing polling on the task being woken, which cannot possibly
succeed: the only tasks that have any business polling are the idle
tasks. Something like
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:40:26PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
You're testing polling on the task being woken, which cannot possibly
succeed: the only tasks that have any business polling are the idle
tasks. Something like this seems to help:
static void ttwu_queue_remote(struct
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:43:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
We need rq-curr, rq-idle 'sleeps' with polling set and nr clear, but
it obviously has no effect setting that if its not actually the current
task.
Touching rq-curr needs holding rcu_read_lock() though, to make sure the
task
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:43:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
We need rq-curr, rq-idle 'sleeps' with polling set and nr clear, but
it obviously has no effect setting that if its not actually the current
task.
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:05:03AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:43:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
We need rq-curr, rq-idle 'sleeps' with polling set and nr clear, but
it obviously has
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:05:03AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:43:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
We need
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:52:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
So you could cheat and set it in pick_next_task_idle() and clear in
put_prev_task_idle(), that way the entire idle loop, when running has it
set.
Isn't that a little late for sched_ttwu_pending? I guess it could be
okay,
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:52:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
So you could cheat and set it in pick_next_task_idle() and clear in
put_prev_task_idle(), that way the entire idle loop, when running has it
set.
Isn't
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:52:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
So you could cheat and set it in pick_next_task_idle() and clear in
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 07:00:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:52:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
So you
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 05:01:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:58:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> ---
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> >> index 4ea7b3f1a087..a5da85fb3570
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 05:01:41PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:58:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
---
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:58:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> ---
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 4ea7b3f1a087..a5da85fb3570 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:58:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
---
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 4ea7b3f1a087..a5da85fb3570 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:58:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 4ea7b3f1a087..a5da85fb3570 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -546,12 +546,38 @@ static bool set_nr_and_not_polling(struct
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:00:23AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> That being said, I think that this addresses once one of the two major
> issues. While the race you're fixing is more interesting, I think its
> impact is dwarfed by the fact that ttwu_queue_remote completely
> ignores polling.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:00:23AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
That being said, I think that this addresses once one of the two major
issues. While the race you're fixing is more interesting, I think its
impact is dwarfed by the fact that ttwu_queue_remote completely
ignores polling.
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 02:58:18PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
---
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 4ea7b3f1a087..a5da85fb3570 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -546,12 +546,38 @@ static bool set_nr_and_not_polling(struct task_struct
On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 15:42 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> A while ago both Mike and Andy complained that we still get pointless wakeup
> IPIs, we had a few patches back and forth but eventually more or less agreed
> and then nothing... :-)
>
> So here's a number of patches that implement
On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 15:42 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
A while ago both Mike and Andy complained that we still get pointless wakeup
IPIs, we had a few patches back and forth but eventually more or less agreed
and then nothing... :-)
So here's a number of patches that implement something
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:00:23AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> That being said, I think that this addresses once one of the two major
> issues. While the race you're fixing is more interesting, I think its
> impact is dwarfed by the fact that ttwu_queue_remote completely
> ignores polling.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> A while ago both Mike and Andy complained that we still get pointless wakeup
> IPIs, we had a few patches back and forth but eventually more or less agreed
> and then nothing... :-)
>
> So here's a number of patches that implement something
A while ago both Mike and Andy complained that we still get pointless wakeup
IPIs, we had a few patches back and forth but eventually more or less agreed
and then nothing... :-)
So here's a number of patches that implement something near what we left off
with.
Its only been compile/boot tested
A while ago both Mike and Andy complained that we still get pointless wakeup
IPIs, we had a few patches back and forth but eventually more or less agreed
and then nothing... :-)
So here's a number of patches that implement something near what we left off
with.
Its only been compile/boot tested
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
A while ago both Mike and Andy complained that we still get pointless wakeup
IPIs, we had a few patches back and forth but eventually more or less agreed
and then nothing... :-)
So here's a number of patches that
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:00:23AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
That being said, I think that this addresses once one of the two major
issues. While the race you're fixing is more interesting, I think its
impact is dwarfed by the fact that ttwu_queue_remote completely
ignores polling. (NB:
38 matches
Mail list logo
