On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:19:42AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > static void ttwu_queue_remote(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
> > {
> > - if (llist_add(>wake_entry, _rq(cpu)->wake_list))
> > - smp_send_reschedule(cpu);
> > + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > +
> > +
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:49:07AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Exactly. AFAICT the only reason that any of this code holds rq->lock
>> (especially ttwu_queue_remote, which I
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:46:39PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Ok but if the target is idle, dynticks and not polling, we don't have the
> choice
> but to send an IPI, right? I'm talking about this kind of case.
Yes; but Andy doesn't seem concerned with such hardware (!x86).
Anything
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 05:43:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:59:52PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > 2014-02-12 11:13 GMT+01:00 Peter Zijlstra :
> > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:59:52PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2014-02-12 11:13 GMT+01:00 Peter Zijlstra :
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner
> >> wrote:
> >> >> A small number of reschedule
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:49:07AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner
> >> wrote:
> >> >> A small number of reschedule
2014-02-12 11:13 GMT+01:00 Peter Zijlstra :
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> >> A small number of reschedule interrupts appear to be due to a race:
>> >> both resched_task and wake_up_idle_cpu do,
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> >> A small number of reschedule interrupts appear to be due to a race:
>> >> both resched_task and
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> A small number of reschedule interrupts appear to be due to a race:
> >> both resched_task and wake_up_idle_cpu do, essentially:
> >>
> >> set_tsk_need_resched(t);
> >>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
A small number of reschedule interrupts appear to be due to a race:
both resched_task and wake_up_idle_cpu do, essentially:
set_tsk_need_resched(t);
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
A small number of reschedule interrupts appear to be due to a race:
both
2014-02-12 11:13 GMT+01:00 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
A small number of reschedule interrupts appear to be due to a race:
both resched_task
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:49:07AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de
wrote:
A
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:59:52PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
2014-02-12 11:13 GMT+01:00 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de
wrote:
A small number
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 05:43:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:59:52PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
2014-02-12 11:13 GMT+01:00 Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:46:39PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
Ok but if the target is idle, dynticks and not polling, we don't have the
choice
but to send an IPI, right? I'm talking about this kind of case.
Yes; but Andy doesn't seem concerned with such hardware (!x86).
Anything x86
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:49:07AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
Exactly. AFAICT the only reason that any of this code holds rq-lock
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:19:42AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
static void ttwu_queue_remote(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
{
- if (llist_add(p-wake_entry, cpu_rq(cpu)-wake_list))
- smp_send_reschedule(cpu);
+ struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
+
+ if
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Just adding Peter for now, as I'm too tired to grok the issue right
> now.
>
>> Rumor has it that Linux 3.13 was supposed to get rid of all the silly
>> rescheduling interrupts. It doesn't,
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Just adding Peter for now, as I'm too tired to grok the issue right
now.
> Rumor has it that Linux 3.13 was supposed to get rid of all the silly
> rescheduling interrupts. It doesn't, although it does seem to have
> improved the situation.
>
> A
Rumor has it that Linux 3.13 was supposed to get rid of all the silly
rescheduling interrupts. It doesn't, although it does seem to have
improved the situation.
A small number of reschedule interrupts appear to be due to a race:
both resched_task and wake_up_idle_cpu do, essentially:
Rumor has it that Linux 3.13 was supposed to get rid of all the silly
rescheduling interrupts. It doesn't, although it does seem to have
improved the situation.
A small number of reschedule interrupts appear to be due to a race:
both resched_task and wake_up_idle_cpu do, essentially:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Just adding Peter for now, as I'm too tired to grok the issue right
now.
Rumor has it that Linux 3.13 was supposed to get rid of all the silly
rescheduling interrupts. It doesn't, although it does seem to have
improved the situation.
A small
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Just adding Peter for now, as I'm too tired to grok the issue right
now.
Rumor has it that Linux 3.13 was supposed to get rid of all the silly
rescheduling interrupts. It
24 matches
Mail list logo
