2012/11/5 Christoph Lameter :
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:51:50PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> >
>> > > The no-CBs mask would be read-only for some time -- changed only at
>> > >
2012/11/2 Christoph Lameter :
> Also could we have this support without cpusets? There are multiple means
> to do system segmentation (f.e. cgroups) and something like hz control is
> pretty basic. Control via some cpumask like irq affinities in f.e.
>
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/nohz
>
> or
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:51:50PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > The no-CBs mask would be read-only for some time -- changed only at
> > > boot. Longer term, I hope to allow
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:51:50PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
The no-CBs mask would be read-only for some time -- changed only at
boot. Longer term, I hope to allow run-time
2012/11/2 Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com:
Also could we have this support without cpusets? There are multiple means
to do system segmentation (f.e. cgroups) and something like hz control is
pretty basic. Control via some cpumask like irq affinities in f.e.
2012/11/5 Christoph Lameter c...@linux.com:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:51:50PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
The no-CBs mask would be read-only for some time -- changed only at
boot.
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:51:50PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > The no-CBs mask would be read-only for some time -- changed only at
> > boot. Longer term, I hope to allow run-time modification, but...
>
> but what? You're not
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The no-CBs mask would be read-only for some time -- changed only at
> boot. Longer term, I hope to allow run-time modification, but...
>
but what? You're not looking to retire already are you? ;-)
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 08:16:58PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > So I believe that these need to be controlled separately for the immediate
> > future.
>
> Yes they do but the configurations are similar and it would be best if
> these were
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> So I believe that these need to be controlled separately for the immediate
> future.
Yes they do but the configurations are similar and it would be best if
these were cpumasks in standard locations instead of being specified at
boot time or in a
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:03:01PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > > also it would be best to sync this conceptually with the processors
> > > enabled for rcu processing.
> >
> > Processors can be disabled for rcu processing? Or are you talking
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 15:03 +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > > also it would be best to sync this conceptually with the processors
> > > enabled for rcu processing.
> >
> > Processors can be disabled for rcu processing? Or are you talking about
> >
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > also it would be best to sync this conceptually with the processors
> > enabled for rcu processing.
>
> Processors can be disabled for rcu processing? Or are you talking about
> Paul's new work of offloading rcu callbacks?
Yes. Paul's new work to
On 11/02/2012 03:37 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 14:23 +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:
A while ago Frederic posted a series of patches to get an idea on
how to implement nohz cpusets. Where you can add a task to a cpuset
and mark
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 14:23 +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > A while ago Frederic posted a series of patches to get an idea on
> > how to implement nohz cpusets. Where you can add a task to a cpuset
> > and mark the set to be 'nohz'. When the task
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> A while ago Frederic posted a series of patches to get an idea on
> how to implement nohz cpusets. Where you can add a task to a cpuset
> and mark the set to be 'nohz'. When the task runs on a CPU and is
> the only task scheduled (nr_running == 1), the
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:
A while ago Frederic posted a series of patches to get an idea on
how to implement nohz cpusets. Where you can add a task to a cpuset
and mark the set to be 'nohz'. When the task runs on a CPU and is
the only task scheduled (nr_running == 1), the
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 14:23 +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:
A while ago Frederic posted a series of patches to get an idea on
how to implement nohz cpusets. Where you can add a task to a cpuset
and mark the set to be 'nohz'. When the task runs on
On 11/02/2012 03:37 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 14:23 +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:
A while ago Frederic posted a series of patches to get an idea on
how to implement nohz cpusets. Where you can add a task to a cpuset
and mark
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:
also it would be best to sync this conceptually with the processors
enabled for rcu processing.
Processors can be disabled for rcu processing? Or are you talking about
Paul's new work of offloading rcu callbacks?
Yes. Paul's new work to remove rcu
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 15:03 +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:
also it would be best to sync this conceptually with the processors
enabled for rcu processing.
Processors can be disabled for rcu processing? Or are you talking about
Paul's new
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 03:03:01PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:
also it would be best to sync this conceptually with the processors
enabled for rcu processing.
Processors can be disabled for rcu processing? Or are you talking about
Paul's
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
So I believe that these need to be controlled separately for the immediate
future.
Yes they do but the configurations are similar and it would be best if
these were cpumasks in standard locations instead of being specified at
boot time or in a
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 08:16:58PM +, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
So I believe that these need to be controlled separately for the immediate
future.
Yes they do but the configurations are similar and it would be best if
these were cpumasks in
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
The no-CBs mask would be read-only for some time -- changed only at
boot. Longer term, I hope to allow run-time modification, but...
but what? You're not looking to retire already are you? ;-)
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 04:51:50PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
The no-CBs mask would be read-only for some time -- changed only at
boot. Longer term, I hope to allow run-time modification, but...
but what? You're not looking to
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> A while ago Frederic posted a series of patches to get an idea on
> how to implement nohz cpusets.
> By using
> isocpus and nohz cpuset, a task would be able to achieve true cpu
> isolation.
>
> This has been long asked for by those in
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
A while ago Frederic posted a series of patches to get an idea on
how to implement nohz cpusets.
snip
By using
isocpus and nohz cpuset, a task would be able to achieve true cpu
isolation.
This has been long asked
28 matches
Mail list logo
