On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 07:25:03PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 06:21:07PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > You mean a periodic call to the above from the housekeepers?
> >
> > I didn't think about doing that because you nacked that approach with
> > scheduler_tic
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 06:21:07PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> You mean a periodic call to the above from the housekeepers?
>
> I didn't think about doing that because you nacked that approach with
> scheduler_tick(). This isn't much different.
This does _one_ thing, namely load accounti
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 05:56:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 03:54:19PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > > You can simply do:
> > >
> > > for_each_nohzfull_cpu(cpu) {
> > > struct rq *rq = rq_of(cpu);
> > >
> > > raw_spin_
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 03:54:19PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > You can simply do:
> >
> > for_each_nohzfull_cpu(cpu) {
> > struct rq *rq = rq_of(cpu);
> >
> > raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > update_cpu_load_active(rq);
> > raw_spin_unlo
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 09:19:36AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > > If the user makes use of full dynticks for soft isolation (for
> > > performance,
> > > can live with a few interrupts...), there can be short moments of
> > > multitasking.
>
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:42:56AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > > So we agreed long time ago, that we first fix the issues with s single
> > > task
> > > running undisturbed in user space, i.e. tickless. Those issues have never
> > > bee
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 04:11:14PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:09:06AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Also, since when can we have enqueues/dequeues while NOHZ_FULL ? I
> > > thought that was the 1 task 100% cpu
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > So we agreed long time ago, that we first fix the issues with s single task
> > running undisturbed in user space, i.e. tickless. Those issues have never
> > been
> > resolved fully, but now you try to add more complexity of extra runnable
> > t
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 03:43:35PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:03:32AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > I tell you since years, that you need to fix that remote accounting stuff,
> > > but no, you insist on adding
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > If the user makes use of full dynticks for soft isolation (for performance,
> > can live with a few interrupts...), there can be short moments of
> > multitasking.
"Soft" isolation? Like soft realtime ... Argh... Please stay away from
corrupting the
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:09:06AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Also, since when can we have enqueues/dequeues while NOHZ_FULL ? I
> > thought that was the 1 task 100% cpu case, there are no
> > enqueues/dequeues there.
>
> That's the most opti
11 matches
Mail list logo
