On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> From 902a2b58d61a51415457ea6768d687cdb7532eff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Kevin Hilman
> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:10:58 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: for NO_HZ_FULL, set default cpumask to
> !tick_nohz_full_mask
>
> To help in
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
From 902a2b58d61a51415457ea6768d687cdb7532eff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:10:58 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] workqueue: for NO_HZ_FULL, set default cpumask to
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 15:43 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:26:41AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 19:23 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:47:29AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 03:24:35PM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Tejun Heo writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> +2.Use the /sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/*/cpumask sysfs files
> >> + to force the WQ_SYSFS workqueues to run on
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:26:41AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 19:23 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:47:29AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:08:31PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > > Acked-by: Lai
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:26:41AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 19:23 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:47:29AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:08:31PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 03:24:35PM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org writes:
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
+2.Use the /sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/*/cpumask sysfs files
+ to force the WQ_SYSFS workqueues to run
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 15:43 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 06:26:41AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 19:23 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:47:29AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 09:55 -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Yeah, my patch only addresses the nohz_full case, but since there
> doesn't seem to be any general agreemenet about the generic case, it
> seems that exposing all unbound workqueues via WQ_SYSFS is the way to
> go.
>
> Mike, looks like
Mike Galbraith writes:
> On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 08:41 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>> So if there is NO_HZ_FULL, you have no objection to binding workqueues to
>> the timekeeping CPUs, but that you would also like some form of automatic
>> binding in the !NO_HZ_FULL case. Of course, if a
Mike Galbraith bitbuc...@online.de writes:
On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 08:41 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
So if there is NO_HZ_FULL, you have no objection to binding workqueues to
the timekeeping CPUs, but that you would also like some form of automatic
binding in the !NO_HZ_FULL case. Of
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 09:55 -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Yeah, my patch only addresses the nohz_full case, but since there
doesn't seem to be any general agreemenet about the generic case, it
seems that exposing all unbound workqueues via WQ_SYSFS is the way to
go.
Mike, looks like you may
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 05:50 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 08:41 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > So maybe start with Kevin's patch, but augment with something else for
> > the !NO_HZ_FULL case?
>
> Sure (hm, does it work without workqueue.disable_numa ?).
I took patch
On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 05:50 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 08:41 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
So maybe start with Kevin's patch, but augment with something else for
the !NO_HZ_FULL case?
Sure (hm, does it work without workqueue.disable_numa ?).
I took patch out for
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 19:23 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:47:29AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:08:31PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan
> >
> > Thank you all, queued for 3.15.
> >
> > We should also have
On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 08:41 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> So if there is NO_HZ_FULL, you have no objection to binding workqueues to
> the timekeeping CPUs, but that you would also like some form of automatic
> binding in the !NO_HZ_FULL case. Of course, if a common mechanism could
> serve
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 08:36:44AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:24 -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > Tejun Heo writes:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >> +2. Use the
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 08:36:44AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:24 -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org writes:
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
+2. Use the
On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 08:41 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
So if there is NO_HZ_FULL, you have no objection to binding workqueues to
the timekeeping CPUs, but that you would also like some form of automatic
binding in the !NO_HZ_FULL case. Of course, if a common mechanism could
serve both
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 19:23 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:47:29AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:08:31PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan la...@cn.fujitsu.com
Thank you all, queued for 3.15.
We should
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:24 -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Tejun Heo writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> +2.Use the /sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/*/cpumask sysfs files
> >> + to force the WQ_SYSFS workqueues to run on the
Tejun Heo writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> +2. Use the /sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/*/cpumask sysfs files
>> +to force the WQ_SYSFS workqueues to run on the specified set
>> +of CPUs. The set of WQ_SYSFS workqueues can be
Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org writes:
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
+2. Use the /sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/*/cpumask sysfs files
+to force the WQ_SYSFS workqueues to run on the specified set
+of CPUs. The set of WQ_SYSFS workqueues can be
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 15:24 -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org writes:
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
+2.Use the /sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/*/cpumask sysfs files
+ to force the WQ_SYSFS workqueues to run on the
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:33:11PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> Fair point! I wordsmithed it into the following. Seem reasonable?
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
>
>
>
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:33:11PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Fair point! I wordsmithed it into the following. Seem reasonable?
Thanx, Paul
On 02/13/2014 08:33 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:04:57AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:23:54PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:04:57AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:23:54PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:23:54PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > +2. Use the /sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/*/cpumask sysfs files
> > > +
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Documentation/kernel-per-CPU-kthreads.txt: Workqueue affinity
>
> This commit documents the ability to apply CPU affinity to WQ_SYSFS
> workqueues, thus offloading them from the desired worker CPUs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:23:54PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > +2. Use the /sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/*/cpumask sysfs files
> > + to force the WQ_SYSFS workqueues to run on the specified set
> > + of CPUs. The
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:23:38PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:47:29AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:08:31PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan
> >
> > Thank you all, queued for 3.15.
> >
> > We should
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> +2. Use the /sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/*/cpumask sysfs files
> + to force the WQ_SYSFS workqueues to run on the specified set
> + of CPUs. The set of WQ_SYSFS workqueues can be displayed using
> + "ls
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:47:29AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:08:31PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan
>
> Thank you all, queued for 3.15.
>
> We should also have some facility for moving the SRCU workqueues to
> housekeeping/timekeeping
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:47:29AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:08:31PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan la...@cn.fujitsu.com
Thank you all, queued for 3.15.
We should also have some facility for moving the SRCU workqueues to
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
+2. Use the /sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/*/cpumask sysfs files
+ to force the WQ_SYSFS workqueues to run on the specified set
+ of CPUs. The set of WQ_SYSFS workqueues can be displayed using
+ ls
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:23:38PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:47:29AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:08:31PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan la...@cn.fujitsu.com
Thank you all, queued for 3.15.
We
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:23:54PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
+2. Use the /sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/*/cpumask sysfs files
+ to force the WQ_SYSFS workqueues to run on the specified set
+ of CPUs. The set of
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Documentation/kernel-per-CPU-kthreads.txt: Workqueue affinity
This commit documents the ability to apply CPU affinity to WQ_SYSFS
workqueues, thus offloading them from the desired worker CPUs.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:23:54PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
+2. Use the /sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/*/cpumask sysfs files
+ to force the
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:04:57AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:23:54PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
+2. Use
On 02/13/2014 08:33 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:04:57AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:59:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 02:23:54PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:02:41AM -0800,
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:08:31PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan
Thank you all, queued for 3.15.
We should also have some facility for moving the SRCU workqueues to
housekeeping/timekeeping kthreads in the NO_HZ_FULL case. Or does
this patch already have that effect?
Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan
On 02/01/2014 03:53 AM, Zoran Markovic wrote:
> From: Shaibal Dutta
>
> For better use of CPU idle time, allow the scheduler to select the CPU
> on which the SRCU grace period work would be scheduled. This improves
> idle residency time and conserves power.
>
> This
Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan la...@cn.fujitsu.com
On 02/01/2014 03:53 AM, Zoran Markovic wrote:
From: Shaibal Dutta shaibal.du...@broadcom.com
For better use of CPU idle time, allow the scheduler to select the CPU
on which the SRCU grace period work would be scheduled. This improves
idle
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:08:31PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
Acked-by: Lai Jiangshan la...@cn.fujitsu.com
Thank you all, queued for 3.15.
We should also have some facility for moving the SRCU workqueues to
housekeeping/timekeeping kthreads in the NO_HZ_FULL case. Or does
this patch already
Signed-off-by: Zoran Markovic
On 31 January 2014 11:53, Zoran Markovic wrote:
> From: Shaibal Dutta
>
> For better use of CPU idle time, allow the scheduler to select the CPU
> on which the SRCU grace period work would be scheduled. This improves
> idle residency time and conserves power.
>
>
From: Shaibal Dutta
For better use of CPU idle time, allow the scheduler to select the CPU
on which the SRCU grace period work would be scheduled. This improves
idle residency time and conserves power.
This functionality is enabled when CONFIG_WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT is selected.
Cc: Lai Jiangshan
From: Shaibal Dutta shaibal.du...@broadcom.com
For better use of CPU idle time, allow the scheduler to select the CPU
on which the SRCU grace period work would be scheduled. This improves
idle residency time and conserves power.
This functionality is enabled when CONFIG_WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT is
Signed-off-by: Zoran Markovic zoran.marko...@linaro.org
On 31 January 2014 11:53, Zoran Markovic zoran.marko...@linaro.org wrote:
From: Shaibal Dutta shaibal.du...@broadcom.com
For better use of CPU idle time, allow the scheduler to select the CPU
on which the SRCU grace period work would be
50 matches
Mail list logo
