On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:44:00AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 22:32 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 06:15:56AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 21:11 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is with
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 07:44:00AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 22:32 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 06:15:56AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 21:11 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is with
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 22:32 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 06:15:56AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 21:11 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > This is with srcutree.exp_holdoff set to 25*1000?
> >
> > Yup.
>
> And please see below for the
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 22:32 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 06:15:56AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 21:11 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > This is with srcutree.exp_holdoff set to 25*1000?
> >
> > Yup.
>
> And please see below for the
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 06:15:56AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 21:11 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > This is with srcutree.exp_holdoff set to 25*1000?
>
> Yup.
And please see below for the trivial patch, just for confirmation.
May I add your Tested-by?
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 06:15:56AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 21:11 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > This is with srcutree.exp_holdoff set to 25*1000?
>
> Yup.
And please see below for the trivial patch, just for confirmation.
May I add your Tested-by?
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 21:11 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> This is with srcutree.exp_holdoff set to 25*1000?
Yup.
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 21:11 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> This is with srcutree.exp_holdoff set to 25*1000?
Yup.
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 05:43:59AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 20:12 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 10:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > > OK, I do need to do more work. My current guess is that I should have
> > > > set the default for
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 05:43:59AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 20:12 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 10:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > > OK, I do need to do more work. My current guess is that I should have
> > > > set the default for
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 20:12 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 10:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > OK, I do need to do more work. My current guess is that I should have
> > > set the default for srcutree.exp_holdoff to 25*1000 instead of 50*1000.
> > > But I am sure
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 20:12 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 10:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > OK, I do need to do more work. My current guess is that I should have
> > > set the default for srcutree.exp_holdoff to 25*1000 instead of 50*1000.
> > > But I am sure
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 08:12:10PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 10:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > OK, I do need to do more work. My current guess is that I should have
> > > set the default for srcutree.exp_holdoff to 25*1000 instead of 50*1000.
> > > But I am
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 08:12:10PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 10:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > OK, I do need to do more work. My current guess is that I should have
> > > set the default for srcutree.exp_holdoff to 25*1000 instead of 50*1000.
> > > But I am
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 10:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > OK, I do need to do more work. My current guess is that I should have
> > set the default for srcutree.exp_holdoff to 25*1000 instead of 50*1000.
> > But I am sure that further data will show me the error of my ways. ;-)
I can give
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 10:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > OK, I do need to do more work. My current guess is that I should have
> > set the default for srcutree.exp_holdoff to 25*1000 instead of 50*1000.
> > But I am sure that further data will show me the error of my ways. ;-)
I can give
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:55:44AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:45:57PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 17:49 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 08:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > > Should I be comparing this
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:55:44AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:45:57PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 17:49 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 08:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > > Should I be comparing this
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:45:57PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 17:49 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 08:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > Should I be comparing this with the 55s number from your initial email,
> > > or to the 39s number?
> >
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 07:45:57PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 17:49 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 08:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > Should I be comparing this with the 55s number from your initial email,
> > > or to the 39s number?
> >
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 17:49 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 08:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Should I be comparing this with the 55s number from your initial email,
> > or to the 39s number?
>
> Should be the 39...
And 39 it is.
-Mike
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 17:49 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 08:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Should I be comparing this with the 55s number from your initial email,
> > or to the 39s number?
>
> Should be the 39...
And 39 it is.
-Mike
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:49:59PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 08:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:26:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 07:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > And a sneak preview,
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:49:59PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 08:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:26:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 07:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > And a sneak preview,
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 08:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:26:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 07:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > And a sneak preview, semi-tested. If you get a chance to run this, please
> > > let me know now it
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 08:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:26:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 07:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > And a sneak preview, semi-tested. If you get a chance to run this, please
> > > let me know now it
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:26:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 07:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > And a sneak preview, semi-tested. If you get a chance to run this, please
> > let me know now it goes.
>
> That took 'time stress-cpu-hotplug.sh' down to 48s, close
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:26:20PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 07:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > And a sneak preview, semi-tested. If you get a chance to run this, please
> > let me know now it goes.
>
> That took 'time stress-cpu-hotplug.sh' down to 48s, close
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 07:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> And a sneak preview, semi-tested. If you get a chance to run this, please
> let me know now it goes.
That took 'time stress-cpu-hotplug.sh' down to 48s, close to classic.
-Mike
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 07:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> And a sneak preview, semi-tested. If you get a chance to run this, please
> let me know now it goes.
That took 'time stress-cpu-hotplug.sh' down to 48s, close to classic.
-Mike
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:36:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:24:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:35:03AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2017-04-23 at 23:22 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > Could you please
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:36:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:24:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:35:03AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2017-04-23 at 23:22 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > Could you please
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:24:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:35:03AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-04-23 at 23:22 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > Could you please collect an ftrace (or whatever) showing the timestamp
> > > sequence of
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:24:42AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:35:03AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-04-23 at 23:22 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > Could you please collect an ftrace (or whatever) showing the timestamp
> > > sequence of
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:35:03AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-04-23 at 23:22 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > Could you please collect an ftrace (or whatever) showing the timestamp
> > sequence of calls to synchronize_srcu(), synchronize_srcu_expedited(),
> > and call_srcu()
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:35:03AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-04-23 at 23:22 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > Could you please collect an ftrace (or whatever) showing the timestamp
> > sequence of calls to synchronize_srcu(), synchronize_srcu_expedited(),
> > and call_srcu()
On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 09:35 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> # tracer: nop
> #
> # entries-in-buffer/entries-written: 229332/229332 #P:8
> #
> # _-=> irqs-off
> # / _=> need-resched
> #| / _---=>
On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 09:35 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> # tracer: nop
> #
> # entries-in-buffer/entries-written: 229332/229332 #P:8
> #
> # _-=> irqs-off
> # / _=> need-resched
> #| / _---=>
On Sun, 2017-04-23 at 23:22 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Could you please collect an ftrace (or whatever) showing the timestamp
> sequence of calls to synchronize_srcu(), synchronize_srcu_expedited(),
> and call_srcu() during the execution of the stress script? If it is easy
> to do, also
On Sun, 2017-04-23 at 23:22 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Could you please collect an ftrace (or whatever) showing the timestamp
> sequence of calls to synchronize_srcu(), synchronize_srcu_expedited(),
> and call_srcu() during the execution of the stress script? If it is easy
> to do, also
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:24:44AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-04-23 at 20:32 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 04:48:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > Running Steven's hotplug stress script in tip w. CLASSIC_SRCU takes 55s
> >
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 07:24:44AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-04-23 at 20:32 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 04:48:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > Running Steven's hotplug stress script in tip w. CLASSIC_SRCU takes 55s
> >
On Sun, 2017-04-23 at 20:32 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 04:48:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Running Steven's hotplug stress script in tip w. CLASSIC_SRCU takes 55s
> > in my i4790 box, whereas TREE_SRCU takes over 16m. (Master with the
> >
On Sun, 2017-04-23 at 20:32 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 04:48:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Running Steven's hotplug stress script in tip w. CLASSIC_SRCU takes 55s
> > in my i4790 box, whereas TREE_SRCU takes over 16m. (Master with the
> >
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 04:48:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Running Steven's hotplug stress script in tip w. CLASSIC_SRCU takes 55s
> in my i4790 box, whereas TREE_SRCU takes over 16m. (Master with the
> same config does it in 39s.. but then lockdep isn't enabled in master)
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 04:48:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Running Steven's hotplug stress script in tip w. CLASSIC_SRCU takes 55s
> in my i4790 box, whereas TREE_SRCU takes over 16m. (Master with the
> same config does it in 39s.. but then lockdep isn't enabled in master)
Greetings,
Running Steven's hotplug stress script in tip w. CLASSIC_SRCU takes 55s
in my i4790 box, whereas TREE_SRCU takes over 16m. (Master with the
same config does it in 39s.. but then lockdep isn't enabled in master)
-Mike
Greetings,
Running Steven's hotplug stress script in tip w. CLASSIC_SRCU takes 55s
in my i4790 box, whereas TREE_SRCU takes over 16m. (Master with the
same config does it in 39s.. but then lockdep isn't enabled in master)
-Mike
48 matches
Mail list logo