On 02/03/2020 14:32, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 02.03.20 15:23, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>> On 02/03/2020 14:03, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>> On 02.03.20 14:25, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
On 28/02/2020 07:10, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>
> I think you are just narrowing the window of the race:
>
> It i
On 02.03.20 15:23, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
On 02/03/2020 14:03, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 02.03.20 14:25, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
On 28/02/2020 07:10, Jürgen Groß wrote:
I think you are just narrowing the window of the race:
It is still possible to have two cpus entering rcu_barrier() and to
make it
On 02/03/2020 14:03, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 02.03.20 14:25, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>> On 28/02/2020 07:10, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you are just narrowing the window of the race:
>>>
>>> It is still possible to have two cpus entering rcu_barrier() and to
>>> make it into the if ( !initial
On 02.03.20 14:25, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
On 28/02/2020 07:10, Jürgen Groß wrote:
I think you are just narrowing the window of the race:
It is still possible to have two cpus entering rcu_barrier() and to
make it into the if ( !initial ) clause.
Instead of introducing another atomic I believe
On 28/02/2020 07:10, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>
> I think you are just narrowing the window of the race:
>
> It is still possible to have two cpus entering rcu_barrier() and to
> make it into the if ( !initial ) clause.
>
> Instead of introducing another atomic I believe the following patch
> instead
On 27.02.20 16:16, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
On 23/02/2020 14:14, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 22.02.20 17:42, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
(XEN) [ 120.891143] *** Dumping CPU0 host state: ***
(XEN) [ 120.895909] [ Xen-4.13.0 x86_64 debug=y Not tainted ]
(XEN) [ 120.902487] CPU: 0
(XEN) [ 120.
On 27.02.20 16:16, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
On 23/02/2020 14:14, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 22.02.20 17:42, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
(XEN) [ 120.891143] *** Dumping CPU0 host state: ***
(XEN) [ 120.895909] [ Xen-4.13.0 x86_64 debug=y Not tainted ]
(XEN) [ 120.902487] CPU: 0
(XEN) [ 120.
On 23/02/2020 14:14, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 22.02.20 17:42, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>> (XEN) [ 120.891143] *** Dumping CPU0 host state: ***
>> (XEN) [ 120.895909] [ Xen-4.13.0 x86_64 debug=y Not tainted ]
>> (XEN) [ 120.902487] CPU: 0
>> (XEN) [ 120.905269] RIP: e008:[]
>> smp
On 22.02.20 17:42, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
On 22/02/2020 06:05, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 22.02.20 03:29, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
On 18/02/2020 12:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
Today the RCU handling in Xen is affecting scheduling in several ways.
It is raising sched softirqs without any real need and it r
On 22/02/2020 06:05, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 22.02.20 03:29, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>> On 18/02/2020 12:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> Today the RCU handling in Xen is affecting scheduling in several ways.
>>> It is raising sched softirqs without any real need and it requires
>>> tasklets for rcu_barr
On 22.02.20 13:32, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 22/02/2020 06:05, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 22.02.20 03:29, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
On 18/02/2020 12:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
Today the RCU handling in Xen is affecting scheduling in several ways.
It is raising sched softirqs without any real need and i
Hi,
On 22/02/2020 06:05, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 22.02.20 03:29, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
On 18/02/2020 12:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
Today the RCU handling in Xen is affecting scheduling in several ways.
It is raising sched softirqs without any real need and it requires
tasklets for rcu_barrier(), w
On 22.02.20 03:29, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
On 18/02/2020 12:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
Today the RCU handling in Xen is affecting scheduling in several ways.
It is raising sched softirqs without any real need and it requires
tasklets for rcu_barrier(), which interacts badly with core scheduling.
Th
On 18/02/2020 12:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Today the RCU handling in Xen is affecting scheduling in several ways.
> It is raising sched softirqs without any real need and it requires
> tasklets for rcu_barrier(), which interacts badly with core scheduling.
>
> This small series repairs those issu
On 18/02/2020 13:15, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
> On 18/02/2020 12:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> Today the RCU handling in Xen is affecting scheduling in several ways.
>> It is raising sched softirqs without any real need and it requires
>> tasklets for rcu_barrier(), which interacts badly with core sched
On 18/02/2020 12:21, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Today the RCU handling in Xen is affecting scheduling in several ways.
> It is raising sched softirqs without any real need and it requires
> tasklets for rcu_barrier(), which interacts badly with core scheduling.
>
> This small series repairs those issu
Today the RCU handling in Xen is affecting scheduling in several ways.
It is raising sched softirqs without any real need and it requires
tasklets for rcu_barrier(), which interacts badly with core scheduling.
This small series repairs those issues.
Additionally some ASSERT()s are added for verif
17 matches
Mail list logo
