On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 17:01:30 +0200
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Personally, I think NOHZ_FULL_ALL should just die.
>
> Yeah, although it's still useful for automatic boot testing to detect issues
> with nohz_full on.
Maybe we could rename/modify it to be a boot-time
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 17:01:30 +0200
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Personally, I think NOHZ_FULL_ALL should just die.
>
> Yeah, although it's still useful for automatic boot testing to detect issues
> with nohz_full on.
Maybe we could rename/modify it to be a boot-time testing option for
On 8/11/2017 11:35 AM, Christopher Lameter wrote:
Ah, Chris since you are here: What is happening with the dataplane
patches?
Work has been crazy and I keep expecting to have a chunk of time to work
on it and it doesn't happen.
September is looking relatively good though for my having time to
On 8/11/2017 11:35 AM, Christopher Lameter wrote:
Ah, Chris since you are here: What is happening with the dataplane
patches?
Work has been crazy and I keep expecting to have a chunk of time to work
on it and it doesn't happen.
September is looking relatively good though for my having time to
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > > Maybe a CONFIG_HOUSEKEEPING_BOOT_ONLY as a way to restrict housekeeping
> > > by default to just the boot cpu. In conjunction with NOHZ_FULL_ALL you
> > > would
> > > then get the expected semantics.
> > A big box with only the boot cpu for
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > > Maybe a CONFIG_HOUSEKEEPING_BOOT_ONLY as a way to restrict housekeeping
> > > by default to just the boot cpu. In conjunction with NOHZ_FULL_ALL you
> > > would
> > > then get the expected semantics.
> > A big box with only the boot cpu for
On 8/11/2017 2:36 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 09:57 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 8/10/2017 8:54 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
But perhaps I should add a new NO_HZ_FULL_BUT_HOUSEKEEPING option.
Otherwise we'll change the meaning of NO_HZ_FULL_ALL way too much, to the
On 8/11/2017 2:36 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 09:57 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 8/10/2017 8:54 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
But perhaps I should add a new NO_HZ_FULL_BUT_HOUSEKEEPING option.
Otherwise we'll change the meaning of NO_HZ_FULL_ALL way too much, to the
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:36:28AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 09:57 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > On 8/10/2017 8:54 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > But perhaps I should add a new NO_HZ_FULL_BUT_HOUSEKEEPING option.
> > > Otherwise we'll change the meaning of
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 08:36:28AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 09:57 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > On 8/10/2017 8:54 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > But perhaps I should add a new NO_HZ_FULL_BUT_HOUSEKEEPING option.
> > > Otherwise we'll change the meaning of
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 09:57 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 8/10/2017 8:54 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > But perhaps I should add a new NO_HZ_FULL_BUT_HOUSEKEEPING option.
> > Otherwise we'll change the meaning of NO_HZ_FULL_ALL way too much, to the
> > point
> > that its default behaviour
On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 09:57 -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 8/10/2017 8:54 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > But perhaps I should add a new NO_HZ_FULL_BUT_HOUSEKEEPING option.
> > Otherwise we'll change the meaning of NO_HZ_FULL_ALL way too much, to the
> > point
> > that its default behaviour
On 8/10/2017 8:54 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
But perhaps I should add a new NO_HZ_FULL_BUT_HOUSEKEEPING option.
Otherwise we'll change the meaning of NO_HZ_FULL_ALL way too much, to the point
that its default behaviour will be the exact opposite of the current one: by
default
every CPU is
On 8/10/2017 8:54 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
But perhaps I should add a new NO_HZ_FULL_BUT_HOUSEKEEPING option.
Otherwise we'll change the meaning of NO_HZ_FULL_ALL way too much, to the point
that its default behaviour will be the exact opposite of the current one: by
default
every CPU is
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 03:48:16PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 7/21/2017 9:21 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >I'm leaving for two weeks so this is food for thoughts in the meantime :)
> >
> >We have a design issue with nohz_full: it drives the isolation features
> >through the
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 03:48:16PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 7/21/2017 9:21 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >I'm leaving for two weeks so this is food for thoughts in the meantime :)
> >
> >We have a design issue with nohz_full: it drives the isolation features
> >through the
On 7/21/2017 9:21 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
I'm leaving for two weeks so this is food for thoughts in the meantime :)
We have a design issue with nohz_full: it drives the isolation features
through the *housekeeping*() functions: kthreads, unpinned timers,
watchdog, ...
But things should
On 7/21/2017 9:21 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
I'm leaving for two weeks so this is food for thoughts in the meantime :)
We have a design issue with nohz_full: it drives the isolation features
through the *housekeeping*() functions: kthreads, unpinned timers,
watchdog, ...
But things should
I'm leaving for two weeks so this is food for thoughts in the meantime :)
We have a design issue with nohz_full: it drives the isolation features
through the *housekeeping*() functions: kthreads, unpinned timers,
watchdog, ...
But things should work the other way around because the tick is just
I'm leaving for two weeks so this is food for thoughts in the meantime :)
We have a design issue with nohz_full: it drives the isolation features
through the *housekeeping*() functions: kthreads, unpinned timers,
watchdog, ...
But things should work the other way around because the tick is just
20 matches
Mail list logo