On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 05:53:40PM +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> All good with that snippet on my end.
>
> I wonder if balance_push() shouldn't use the cpu_of() accessor
> instead of rq->cpu.
That might be a personal quirk of mine, but for code that is under
CONFIG_SMP (as all balancing code
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 04:58:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 04:39:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 04:20:56PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:46:33AM +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> > >
> > > > Found the
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 04:39:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 04:20:56PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:46:33AM +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> >
> > > Found the issue:
> > >
> > > $ cat hotplug/states:
> > > 219: sched:active
> > > 220:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 04:20:56PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:46:33AM +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
>
> > Found the issue:
> >
> > $ cat hotplug/states:
> > 219: sched:active
> > 220: online
> >
> > CPU0:
> >
> > $ echo 219 > hotplug/fail
> > $ echo 0 > online
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 10:46:33AM +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> Found the issue:
>
> $ cat hotplug/states:
> 219: sched:active
> 220: online
>
> CPU0:
>
> $ echo 219 > hotplug/fail
> $ echo 0 > online
>
> => cpu_active = 1 cpu_dying = 1
>
> which means that later on, for another CPU
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:56:30AM +0100, Vincent Donnefort wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 03:32:11PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > On 15/04/21 10:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Can't make sense of what I did.. I've removed that hunk. Patch now looks
> > > like this.
> > >
> >
> > Small
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 03:32:11PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 15/04/21 10:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Can't make sense of what I did.. I've removed that hunk. Patch now looks
> > like this.
> >
>
> Small nit below, but regardless feel free to apply to the whole lot:
> Reviewed-by:
On 15/04/21 17:29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 03:32:11PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> I'd word that "is enabled below sched_cpu_activate()", since
>> sched_cpu_deactivate() is now out of the picture.
>
> I are confused (again!). Did you mean to say something like: 'is
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 03:32:11PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > So instead, make sure balance_push is enabled between
> > sched_cpu_deactivate() and sched_cpu_activate() (eg. when
> > !cpu_active()), and gate it's utility with cpu_dying().
>
> I'd word that "is enabled below
On 15/04/21 10:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Can't make sense of what I did.. I've removed that hunk. Patch now looks
> like this.
>
Small nit below, but regardless feel free to apply to the whole lot:
Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider
@VincentD, ISTR you had tested the initial version of this with
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 08:51:23AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I'm afraid I don't follow; we're replacing a read of rq->balance_push with
> > cpu_dying(), and those are still written on the same side of the
> > synchronize_rcu(). What am I missing?
>
> Yeah, I'm not sure anymnore either; I
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 06:22:42PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 12/04/21 14:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 03:13:04PM +, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> Peter Zijlstra writes:
> >> > @@ -7910,6 +7908,14 @@ int sched_cpu_deactivate(unsigned int cp
> >> >}
>
On 12/04/21 14:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 03:13:04PM +, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra writes:
>> > @@ -7910,6 +7908,14 @@ int sched_cpu_deactivate(unsigned int cp
>> >}
>> >rq_unlock_irqrestore(rq, );
>> >
>> > + /*
>> > + * From this point
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 03:13:04PM +, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra writes:
> > @@ -7883,14 +7889,6 @@ int sched_cpu_deactivate(unsigned int cp
> > set_cpu_active(cpu, false);
> >
> > /*
> > -* From this point forward, this CPU will refuse to run any task that
> > -
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 03:13:04PM +, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
> > /*
> > * When going down, decrement the number of cores with SMT present.
>
> > @@ -8206,7 +8212,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
> > rq->sd = NULL;
> > rq->rd =
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> @@ -7883,14 +7889,6 @@ int sched_cpu_deactivate(unsigned int cp
> set_cpu_active(cpu, false);
>
> /*
> - * From this point forward, this CPU will refuse to run any task that
> - * is not: migrate_disable() or KTHREAD_IS_PER_CPU, and will actively
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
