On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 10:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 08:30:27PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > It took quite a bit longer than I thought it would, but I finally
> > managed to cobble a standalone testcase together that brings nearly
> > instant gratification on my
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 08:39:04AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> I don't see why we can't just say no in can_migrate_task() if ->pi_lock
> is held.
I suppose we could do that; what I really want to avoid is also
requiring pi_lock for scheduling.
The down-side of looking at pi_lock for migration
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 03:08:26PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Seems trying to make the target invisible to balancing created a new
> race: dequeue target, do stuff that may drop rq->lock while it's
> dequeued, target sneaks into schedule(), dequeues itself (#2), boom.
Aw god yes, duh.
Fun li
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 08:48:56PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> P.S. intel_idle is not all that wonderful on this box.
>
> - 78.31% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
>
>
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 08:30:27PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> It took quite a bit longer than I thought it would, but I finally
> managed to cobble a standalone testcase together that brings nearly
> instant gratification on my 8 socket DL980. Patched kernel explodes, so
> first cut ain't qui
On Sat, 2015-05-30 at 15:08 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 09:43:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > Hi Peter,
> > >
> > > I'm not seeing what prevents pull_task() from yanking a task out from
> > > under __sc
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 09:43:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > I'm not seeing what prevents pull_task() from yanking a task out from
> > under __sched_setscheduler(). A box sprinkling smoldering 3.0 kernel
> > wreck
P.S. intel_idle is not all that wonderful on this box.
- 78.31% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
▒
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 17:24 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:54:26PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > The below is compile tested only, but it might just work if I didn't
> > > miss anything :-)
> >
> > I'll take it for a spin, and take a peek at the application.
>
>
В Чт, 28/05/2015 в 15:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra пишет:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 09:43:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > I'm not seeing what prevents pull_task() from yanking a task out from
> > under __sched_setscheduler(). A box sprinkling smoldering 3.0 kernel
> > wreckage a
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:54:26PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > The below is compile tested only, but it might just work if I didn't
> > miss anything :-)
>
> I'll take it for a spin, and take a peek at the application.
Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lin
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 15:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Say, how easy can that thing be reproduced?
It doesn't seem to take the reporter very long to blow their box up.
What they're doing must be pretty darn uncommon though.
I have the source to a test application, no destructions to go with
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 09:43:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I'm not seeing what prevents pull_task() from yanking a task out from
> under __sched_setscheduler(). A box sprinkling smoldering 3.0 kernel
> wreckage all over my bugzilla mbox isn't seeing it either ;-)
Say, how ea
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:06 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 02:04:21PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Which is exactly the hole you mean, right?
> >
> > Yeah, but that hole is way older than dl. Box falling
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 02:04:21PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Which is exactly the hole you mean, right?
>
> Yeah, but that hole is way older than dl. Box falling into it is
> running SLE11, which is.. well, still somewhat resemble
On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 09:43:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > I'm not seeing what prevents pull_task() from yanking a task out from
> > under __sched_setscheduler(). A box sprinkling smoldering 3.0 kernel
> > wreck
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 09:43:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I'm not seeing what prevents pull_task() from yanking a task out from
> under __sched_setscheduler(). A box sprinkling smoldering 3.0 kernel
> wreckage all over my bugzilla mbox isn't seeing it either ;-)
>
> Scenari
17 matches
Mail list logo
