On Thu, Jul 19 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 19 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >
> >>> Index: linux/block/blktrace.c
> >>> ===
> >>> --- linux.orig/block/blktrace.c
> >>> +++
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>>> Index: linux/block/blktrace.c
>>> ===
>>> --- linux.orig/block/blktrace.c
>>> +++ linux/block/blktrace.c
>>> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static void trace_note(struct
On Thu, Jul 19 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > Index: linux/block/blktrace.c
> > ===
> > --- linux.orig/block/blktrace.c
> > +++ linux/block/blktrace.c
> > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static void trace_note(struct blk_trace
> >
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> that's still an important question, but these changes are still needed
> nevertheless, to unbreak softlockup.c
Well, I'm happy with using jiffies as the backport fix for softlockup
(if sched_clock is indeed a problem there), but mainly because it won't
affect Xen. I don't
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > yeah, that's the idea.
>
> Good. But the real question: does it help Andrew?
that's still an important question, but these changes are still needed
nevertheless, to unbreak softlockup.c ... I havent been watching while
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> yeah, that's the idea.
>
Good. But the real question: does it help Andrew?
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > how about the patch below instead? (which, unlike the first one,
> > happens to build and boot ;-)
>
> Yes, that should be fine if its just based on sched_clock. Presumably
> that means that any architecture (eg, s390) which chooses to
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>> Hm, that doesn't look quite right. Doesn't rq_clock measure time
>>> spent running? Unstolen time includes idle time too (it just
>>> excludes time in which a VCPU is runnable but not actually running).
>>>
>>
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hm, that doesn't look quite right. Doesn't rq_clock measure time
> > spent running? Unstolen time includes idle time too (it just
> > excludes time in which a VCPU is runnable but not actually running).
>
> generally rq_clock() also includes idle
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > yeah. But then it should not be using sched_clock() but CFS's new
> > rq_clock() method - which does try to construct a globally valid
> > timesource out of sched_clock(). [that fix is not backportable
> > though]
>
> Hm, that doesn't look
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yeah. But then it should not be using sched_clock() but CFS's new
rq_clock() method - which does try to construct a globally valid
timesource out of sched_clock(). [that fix is not backportable
though]
Hm, that doesn't look quite
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, that doesn't look quite right. Doesn't rq_clock measure time
spent running? Unstolen time includes idle time too (it just
excludes time in which a VCPU is runnable but not actually running).
generally rq_clock() also includes idle time, so
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, that doesn't look quite right. Doesn't rq_clock measure time
spent running? Unstolen time includes idle time too (it just
excludes time in which a VCPU is runnable but not actually running).
generally rq_clock()
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how about the patch below instead? (which, unlike the first one,
happens to build and boot ;-)
Yes, that should be fine if its just based on sched_clock. Presumably
that means that any architecture (eg, s390) which chooses to implement
Ingo Molnar wrote:
yeah, that's the idea.
Good. But the real question: does it help Andrew?
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
yeah, that's the idea.
Good. But the real question: does it help Andrew?
that's still an important question, but these changes are still needed
nevertheless, to unbreak softlockup.c ... I havent been watching while
doing
Ingo Molnar wrote:
that's still an important question, but these changes are still needed
nevertheless, to unbreak softlockup.c
Well, I'm happy with using jiffies as the backport fix for softlockup
(if sched_clock is indeed a problem there), but mainly because it won't
affect Xen. I don't
On Thu, Jul 19 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Index: linux/block/blktrace.c
===
--- linux.orig/block/blktrace.c
+++ linux/block/blktrace.c
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static void trace_note(struct blk_trace
const int
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Index: linux/block/blktrace.c
===
--- linux.orig/block/blktrace.c
+++ linux/block/blktrace.c
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static void trace_note(struct blk_trace
On Thu, Jul 19 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Jens Axboe wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Index: linux/block/blktrace.c
===
--- linux.orig/block/blktrace.c
+++ linux/block/blktrace.c
@@ -41,7
20 matches
Mail list logo
