On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:59:36AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
> On 9/12/2013 10:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
> >>> On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 08:48:33PM +0100, Hedi Berriche wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 19:59 Mike Travis wrote:
> | On 9/12/2013 10:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> |
> | > But what is it that you are looking for? If you want to silence it
> | > completely, the rcu_cpu_stall_suppress boot/sysfs
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 19:59 Mike Travis wrote:
| On 9/12/2013 10:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
|
| > But what is it that you are looking for? If you want to silence it
| > completely, the rcu_cpu_stall_suppress boot/sysfs parameter is what
| > you want to use.
|
| We have by default
On 9/12/2013 10:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
>>> On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
>
On 9/12/2013 11:35 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:27:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:27:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
> > > On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500,
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
> > On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
> > >> For performance reasons, the NMI handler may be
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
For performance reasons, the NMI handler may be disabled to
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:27:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis
On 9/12/2013 11:35 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:27:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu,
On 9/12/2013 10:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
For performance
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 19:59 Mike Travis wrote:
| On 9/12/2013 10:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
|
| But what is it that you are looking for? If you want to silence it
| completely, the rcu_cpu_stall_suppress boot/sysfs parameter is what
| you want to use.
|
| We have by default
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 08:48:33PM +0100, Hedi Berriche wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 19:59 Mike Travis wrote:
| On 9/12/2013 10:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
|
| But what is it that you are looking for? If you want to silence it
| completely, the rcu_cpu_stall_suppress boot/sysfs
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 11:59:36AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
On 9/12/2013 10:27 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
>
>
> On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
> >> For performance reasons, the NMI handler may be disabled to lessen the
> >> performance impact caused by the
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:07:03AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
For performance reasons, the NMI handler may be disabled to lessen the
performance impact caused by the multiple perf
On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
>> For performance reasons, the NMI handler may be disabled to lessen the
>> performance impact caused by the multiple perf tools running concurently.
>> If the system nmi command is issued
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
> For performance reasons, the NMI handler may be disabled to lessen the
> performance impact caused by the multiple perf tools running concurently.
> If the system nmi command is issued when the UV NMI handler is disabled,
> the "Dazed
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
For performance reasons, the NMI handler may be disabled to lessen the
performance impact caused by the multiple perf tools running concurently.
If the system nmi command is issued when the UV NMI handler is disabled,
the Dazed and
On 9/9/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:50:41PM -0500, Mike Travis wrote:
For performance reasons, the NMI handler may be disabled to lessen the
performance impact caused by the multiple perf tools running concurently.
If the system nmi command is issued when
20 matches
Mail list logo