On 23 April 2014 22:20, Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> On 04/22/2014 03:32 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> This vmstat interrupt is disturbing my core isolation :), have you got
>> any far with this patchset?
>
> You don't mean an interrupt, right?
Sorry for not being clear enough. I meant the interruption
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014, Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> The updates are done via the regular priority workqueue.
Yup so things could be fixed at that level with setting an additional
workqueue flag?
> I'm playing with isolation as well (has been more or less a background thing
> for the last 6+ years).
Hi Viresh,
On 04/22/2014 03:32 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> V2->V3:
>> - Introduce a new tick_get_housekeeping_cpu() function. Not sure
>> if that is exactly what we want but it is a start. Thomas?
>> - Migrate the shepherd task if the
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014, Max Krasnyansky wrote:
The updates are done via the regular priority workqueue.
Yup so things could be fixed at that level with setting an additional
workqueue flag?
I'm playing with isolation as well (has been more or less a background thing
for the last 6+ years). Our
On 23 April 2014 22:20, Max Krasnyansky m...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
On 04/22/2014 03:32 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
This vmstat interrupt is disturbing my core isolation :), have you got
any far with this patchset?
You don't mean an interrupt, right?
Sorry for not being clear enough. I meant
Hi Viresh,
On 04/22/2014 03:32 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com wrote:
V2-V3:
- Introduce a new tick_get_housekeeping_cpu() function. Not sure
if that is exactly what we want but it is a start. Thomas?
- Migrate the shepherd task if
On 22 April 2014 19:08, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Sorry no too much other stuff. Would be glad if you could improve on it.
> Should have some time on Friday to look at it.
Really busy with other activities for improving core isolation, doesn't look
like I will get enough time getting this done
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > V2->V3:
> > - Introduce a new tick_get_housekeeping_cpu() function. Not sure
> > if that is exactly what we want but it is a start. Thomas?
> > - Migrate the shepherd task if the output of
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> V2->V3:
> - Introduce a new tick_get_housekeeping_cpu() function. Not sure
> if that is exactly what we want but it is a start. Thomas?
> - Migrate the shepherd task if the output of
> tick_get_housekeeping_cpu() changes.
> - Fixes
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com wrote:
V2-V3:
- Introduce a new tick_get_housekeeping_cpu() function. Not sure
if that is exactly what we want but it is a start. Thomas?
- Migrate the shepherd task if the output of
tick_get_housekeeping_cpu() changes.
-
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com wrote:
V2-V3:
- Introduce a new tick_get_housekeeping_cpu() function. Not sure
if that is exactly what we want but it is a start. Thomas?
- Migrate the shepherd task if the output
On 22 April 2014 19:08, Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com wrote:
Sorry no too much other stuff. Would be glad if you could improve on it.
Should have some time on Friday to look at it.
Really busy with other activities for improving core isolation, doesn't look
like I will get enough time
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Not really. Thomas suggested an infrastructure to move CPU-local periodic
> jobs handling to be offlined to set of remote housekeeping CPU.
As I said in my reply to that proposal this is not possible since the cpu
local jobs rely on cpu local
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
Not really. Thomas suggested an infrastructure to move CPU-local periodic
jobs handling to be offlined to set of remote housekeeping CPU.
As I said in my reply to that proposal this is not possible since the cpu
local jobs rely on cpu local
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 05:40:40PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> V2->V3:
> - Introduce a new tick_get_housekeeping_cpu() function. Not sure
> if that is exactly what we want but it is a start. Thomas?
Not really. Thomas suggested an infrastructure to move CPU-local periodic
jobs handling to
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 05:40:40PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
V2-V3:
- Introduce a new tick_get_housekeeping_cpu() function. Not sure
if that is exactly what we want but it is a start. Thomas?
Not really. Thomas suggested an infrastructure to move CPU-local periodic
jobs handling to be
Hmmm... This has been sitting there for over a month. What I can I do to
to make progress on merging this?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
Hmmm... This has been sitting there for over a month. What I can I do to
to make progress on merging this?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
V2->V3:
- Introduce a new tick_get_housekeeping_cpu() function. Not sure
if that is exactly what we want but it is a start. Thomas?
- Migrate the shepherd task if the output of
tick_get_housekeeping_cpu() changes.
- Fixes recommended by Andrew.
V1->V2:
- Optimize the need_update check by
V2-V3:
- Introduce a new tick_get_housekeeping_cpu() function. Not sure
if that is exactly what we want but it is a start. Thomas?
- Migrate the shepherd task if the output of
tick_get_housekeeping_cpu() changes.
- Fixes recommended by Andrew.
V1-V2:
- Optimize the need_update check by using
20 matches
Mail list logo
