On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:28:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:31:05PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 06:28:41 +0200
> > Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > Livelock can be triggered by setting kworkers to SCHED_FIFO, then
> > > suspend/resume..
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:31:05PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 06:28:41 +0200
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Livelock can be triggered by setting kworkers to SCHED_FIFO, then
> > suspend/resume.. you come back from sleepy-land with a spinning
> > kworker. For whatever re
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 10:25:19PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > - while (some_qdisc_is_busy(dev))
> > - yield();
> > + swait_event_timeout(swait, !some_qdisc_is_busy(dev), 1);
> > }
>
> I don
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 17:31 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 06:28:41 +0200
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Livelock can be triggered by setting kworkers to SCHED_FIFO, then
> > suspend/resume.. you come back from sleepy-land with a spinning
> > kworker. For whatever reason, I
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 16:55 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:25 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > - while (some_qdisc_is_busy(dev))
> > > > -
On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 06:28:41 +0200
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Livelock can be triggered by setting kworkers to SCHED_FIFO, then
> suspend/resume.. you come back from sleepy-land with a spinning
> kworker. For whatever reason, I can only do that with an enterprise
> like config, my standard config r
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:25 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> > - while (some_qdisc_is_busy(dev))
>> > - yield();
>> > + swait_event_timeout
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:25 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > - while (some_qdisc_is_busy(dev))
> > - yield();
> > + swait_event_timeout(swait,
> > !some_qdisc_is_busy(dev), 1);
> > }
>
> I don't
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> - while (some_qdisc_is_busy(dev))
> - yield();
> + swait_event_timeout(swait, !some_qdisc_is_busy(dev), 1);
> }
I don't see why this is an improvement even if I don't care about the
hardcode
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 15:39 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> Thanks for the report! Looks like a quick solution here is to replace
> this yield() with cond_resched(), it is harder to really wait for
> all qdisc's to transmit all packets.
No, cond_resched() won't help. What I did is below, but I suspect
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Greetings network wizards,
>
> Quoting kernel/sched/core.c:
> /**
> * yield - yield the current processor to other threads.
> *
> * Do not ever use this function, there's a 99% chance you're doing it wrong.
> *
> * The scheduler is at al
Greetings network wizards,
Quoting kernel/sched/core.c:
/**
* yield - yield the current processor to other threads.
*
* Do not ever use this function, there's a 99% chance you're doing it wrong.
*
* The scheduler is at all times free to pick the calling task as the most
* eligible task to ru
12 matches
Mail list logo