* Tony Lindgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050831 16:21]:
> * Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050831 14:20]:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 04:47:05PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:03:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > > that sounds like a fundamental
* Tony Lindgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050831 16:21]:
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050831 14:20]:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 04:47:05PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:03:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
that sounds like a fundamental issue that really
Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:43:45PM +, Christopher Friesen wrote:
Last time I got interested in this, the management of the event queues
was still a fairly major performance hit.
Hmm ..I dont see any event queues being managed by dyn-tick patch.
Are you referring
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:43:45PM +, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> Last time I got interested in this, the management of the event queues
> was still a fairly major performance hit.
>
> Has this overhead been brought down to reasonable levels?
Hmm ..I dont see any event queues being managed
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050831 14:20]:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 04:47:05PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:03:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > that sounds like a fundamental issue that really needs to be fixed
> > > first!
> >
> > It
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 04:47:05PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:03:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > that sounds like a fundamental issue that really needs to be fixed
> > first!
>
> It should be fixed by the patch here:
>
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:03:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> that sounds like a fundamental issue that really needs to be fixed
> first!
It should be fixed by the patch here:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel=111556608901657=2
Tony,
I don't see any slow bootups on x86
> > ehh
> > why does it cause slow boots?
> > if that kind of behavior changes... isn't that a sign there is a
> > fundamental bug still ?
>
> Well it seems like the next_timer_interrupt is something like 400
> jiffies away and RCU code waits for completion for example in the
> network code.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:34:03PM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Well it seems like the next_timer_interrupt is something like 400
> jiffies away and RCU code waits for completion for example in the
> network code.
I had a patch to fix the problem of "RCU grace period extended
because of
* Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050831 11:40]:
> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 10:44 +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Alistair John Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050830 18:57]:
> > > On Tuesday 30 August 2005 13:31, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > Same issue, it's waiting on
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 10:44 +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Alistair John Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050830 18:57]:
> > On Tuesday 30 August 2005 13:31, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Same issue, it's waiting on dynticks before being reworked.
> > >
> > > Also one more minor
* Alistair John Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050830 18:57]:
> On Tuesday 30 August 2005 13:31, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> [snip]
> > >
> > > Same issue, it's waiting on dynticks before being reworked.
> >
> > Also one more minor issue; Dyntick can cause slow boots with dyntick
> > enabled from boot
* Alistair John Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050830 18:57]:
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 13:31, Tony Lindgren wrote:
[snip]
Same issue, it's waiting on dynticks before being reworked.
Also one more minor issue; Dyntick can cause slow boots with dyntick
enabled from boot because the
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 10:44 +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Alistair John Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050830 18:57]:
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 13:31, Tony Lindgren wrote:
[snip]
Same issue, it's waiting on dynticks before being reworked.
Also one more minor issue; Dyntick can
* Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050831 11:40]:
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 10:44 +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Alistair John Strachan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050830 18:57]:
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 13:31, Tony Lindgren wrote:
[snip]
Same issue, it's waiting on dynticks before being
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:34:03PM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
Well it seems like the next_timer_interrupt is something like 400
jiffies away and RCU code waits for completion for example in the
network code.
I had a patch to fix the problem of RCU grace period extended
because of sleeping
ehh
why does it cause slow boots?
if that kind of behavior changes... isn't that a sign there is a
fundamental bug still ?
Well it seems like the next_timer_interrupt is something like 400
jiffies away and RCU code waits for completion for example in the
network code.
that sounds
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:03:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
that sounds like a fundamental issue that really needs to be fixed
first!
It should be fixed by the patch here:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernelm=111556608901657w=2
Tony,
I don't see any slow bootups on x86
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 04:47:05PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:03:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
that sounds like a fundamental issue that really needs to be fixed
first!
It should be fixed by the patch here:
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050831 14:20]:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 04:47:05PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 01:03:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
that sounds like a fundamental issue that really needs to be fixed
first!
It should be fixed by
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:43:45PM +, Christopher Friesen wrote:
Last time I got interested in this, the management of the event queues
was still a fairly major performance hit.
Has this overhead been brought down to reasonable levels?
Hmm ..I dont see any event queues being managed by
Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:43:45PM +, Christopher Friesen wrote:
Last time I got interested in this, the management of the event queues
was still a fairly major performance hit.
Hmm ..I dont see any event queues being managed by dyn-tick patch.
Are you referring
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 13:31, Tony Lindgren wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > Same issue, it's waiting on dynticks before being reworked.
>
> Also one more minor issue; Dyntick can cause slow boots with dyntick
> enabled from boot because the there's not much in the timer queue
> until init.
>
> This
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050830 06:47]:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:54 pm, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:05:06AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:42, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> > > > Lee Revell wrote:
> > > > > The controversy over the
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050830 06:47]:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:54 pm, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:05:06AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:42, Christopher Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
The controversy over the introduction of CONFIG_HZ
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 13:31, Tony Lindgren wrote:
[snip]
Same issue, it's waiting on dynticks before being reworked.
Also one more minor issue; Dyntick can cause slow boots with dyntick
enabled from boot because the there's not much in the timer queue
until init.
This probably does
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:54 pm, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:05:06AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:42, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> > > Lee Revell wrote:
> > > > The controversy over the introduction of CONFIG_HZ demonstrated the
> > > > urgency of getting
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:05:06AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:42, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> > Lee Revell wrote:
> > > The controversy over the introduction of CONFIG_HZ demonstrated the
> > > urgency of getting a dynamic tick solution merged before 2.6.14.
> > >
> > >
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:42, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > The controversy over the introduction of CONFIG_HZ demonstrated the
> > urgency of getting a dynamic tick solution merged before 2.6.14.
> >
> > Anyone care to give a status report? Con, do you feel that the last
> >
Lee Revell wrote:
The controversy over the introduction of CONFIG_HZ demonstrated the
urgency of getting a dynamic tick solution merged before 2.6.14.
Anyone care to give a status report? Con, do you feel that the last
version you posted is ready to go in?
Last time I got interested in this,
The controversy over the introduction of CONFIG_HZ demonstrated the
urgency of getting a dynamic tick solution merged before 2.6.14.
Anyone care to give a status report? Con, do you feel that the last
version you posted is ready to go in?
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
The controversy over the introduction of CONFIG_HZ demonstrated the
urgency of getting a dynamic tick solution merged before 2.6.14.
Anyone care to give a status report? Con, do you feel that the last
version you posted is ready to go in?
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Lee Revell wrote:
The controversy over the introduction of CONFIG_HZ demonstrated the
urgency of getting a dynamic tick solution merged before 2.6.14.
Anyone care to give a status report? Con, do you feel that the last
version you posted is ready to go in?
Last time I got interested in this,
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:42, Christopher Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
The controversy over the introduction of CONFIG_HZ demonstrated the
urgency of getting a dynamic tick solution merged before 2.6.14.
Anyone care to give a status report? Con, do you feel that the last
version you
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:05:06AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:42, Christopher Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
The controversy over the introduction of CONFIG_HZ demonstrated the
urgency of getting a dynamic tick solution merged before 2.6.14.
Anyone care to
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:54 pm, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:05:06AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:42, Christopher Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
The controversy over the introduction of CONFIG_HZ demonstrated the
urgency of getting a dynamic
36 matches
Mail list logo
