On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 08:54 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:10:44AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 06:12 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 20:50 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > > * Mike Galbraith | 2014-01-1
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:10:44AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 06:12 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 20:50 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > * Mike Galbraith | 2014-01-18 04:25:14 [+0100]:
> > >
> > > >> ># timers-do-not-raise-softirq-u
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 06:12 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 20:50 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > * Mike Galbraith | 2014-01-18 04:25:14 [+0100]:
> >
> > >> ># timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch
> > >> ># rtmutex-use-a-trylock-for-waiter-lock-in-tr
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 20:46 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith | 2013-12-23 06:12:39 [+0100]:
>
> >P.S.
> >
> >virgin -rt7 doing tbench 64 + make -j64
> >
> >[ 97.907960] perf samples too long (3138 > 2500), lowering
> >kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 5
> >[ 1
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 20:50 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith | 2014-01-18 04:25:14 [+0100]:
>
> >> ># timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch
> >> ># rtmutex-use-a-trylock-for-waiter-lock-in-trylock.patch
> >> >
> >> >..those two out does seem to have stabilize
* Mike Galbraith | 2014-01-18 04:25:14 [+0100]:
>> ># timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch
>> ># rtmutex-use-a-trylock-for-waiter-lock-in-trylock.patch
>> >
>> >..those two out does seem to have stabilized the thing.
>>
>> timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch is on its w
* Mike Galbraith | 2013-12-23 06:12:39 [+0100]:
>P.S.
>
>virgin -rt7 doing tbench 64 + make -j64
>
>[ 97.907960] perf samples too long (3138 > 2500), lowering
>kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 5
>[ 103.047921] perf samples too long (5544 > 5000), lowering
>kernel.perf_event_max_sample
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 18:23 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> So I had rtmutex-take-the-waiter-lock-with-irqs-off.patch in my queue
> which took the waiter lock with irqs off. This should be the same thing
> you try do here.
(yeah, these are just whacked mole body bags;)
--
To unsubscrib
On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 18:14 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith | 2013-12-25 18:37:37 [+0100]:
>
> >On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 23:55 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 04:07:34AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> >Having sufficiently recovered from tur
* Mike Galbraith | 2013-12-26 11:03:32 [+0100]:
>On Wed, 2013-12-25 at 04:07 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 11:36 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>> > So which code do you think deserves the big lump of coal? ;-)
>>
>> Sebastian's NO_HZ_FULL locking fixes.
>
>Whack-a-mol
* Mike Galbraith | 2013-12-25 18:37:37 [+0100]:
>On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 23:55 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 04:07:34AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>Having sufficiently recovered from turkey overdose to be able to slither
>upstairs (bump bump bump) to check on the box
On Wed, 2013-12-25 at 04:07 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 11:36 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > So which code do you think deserves the big lump of coal? ;-)
>
> Sebastian's NO_HZ_FULL locking fixes.
Whack-a-mole hasn't yet dug up any new moles.
---
kernel/timer.c |
On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 23:55 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 04:07:34AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > So which code do you think deserves the big lump of coal? ;-)
> >
> > Sebastian's NO_HZ_FULL locking fixes. Locking is hard, and rt sure
> > doesn't make it any ea
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 04:07:34AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 11:36 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 05:38:53AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2013-12-22 at 09:57 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > I'll let the box give
> > > > RCU
On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 11:36 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 05:38:53AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-12-22 at 09:57 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > I'll let the box give
> > > RCU something to do for a couple days. No news is good news.
> >
> > Ho ho
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 05:38:53AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-12-22 at 09:57 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > I'll let the box give
> > RCU something to do for a couple days. No news is good news.
>
> Ho ho hum, merry christmas, gift attached.
Hmmm... I guess I should take a m
On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 05:38 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-12-22 at 09:57 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > I'll let the box give
> > RCU something to do for a couple days. No news is good news.
>
> Ho ho hum, merry christmas, gift attached.
>
> I'll beat on virgin -rt7, see if it
On Sun, 2013-12-22 at 09:57 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> I'll let the box give
> RCU something to do for a couple days. No news is good news.
Ho ho hum, merry christmas, gift attached.
I'll beat on virgin -rt7, see if it survives, then re-apply RCU patch
and retest. This kernel had nohz_full
On Sun, 2013-12-22 at 04:07 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-12-21 at 20:39 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > From: "Paul E. McKenney"
> >
> > Running RCU out of softirq is a problem for some workloads that would
> > like to manage RCU core processing independently of other
On Sat, 2013-12-21 at 20:39 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney"
>
> Running RCU out of softirq is a problem for some workloads that would
> like to manage RCU core processing independently of other softirq work,
> for example, setting kthread priority. This commit
20 matches
Mail list logo
