Ming,
On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Thoughts?
>
> Given this patchset doesn't have effect on normal machines without
> supporting physical CPU hotplug, it can fix performance regression on
> machines which might support
Hi Thomas,
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 11:08:54AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > So my understanding is that these irq patches are enhancements and
> > > > > not bug
> > > > > fixes. I'
On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 10:39 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Lo! Your friendly Linux regression tracker here ;-)
>
> On 08.03.2018 14:18, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 18:53 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > This patchset tries to spread among online CPUs as far as possible, so
> >
Lo! Your friendly Linux regression tracker here ;-)
On 08.03.2018 14:18, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 18:53 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> This patchset tries to spread among online CPUs as far as possible, so
>> that we can avoid to allocate too less irq vectors with online CPUs
>>
Hi Artern,
At 03/14/2018 05:07 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 12:11 +0800, Dou Liyang wrote:
At 03/13/2018 05:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Artem Bityutskiy
Longer term, yeah, I agree. Kernel's notion of possible CPU
count
should be realis
On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 12:11 +0800, Dou Liyang wrote:
> > At 03/13/2018 05:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Artem Bityutskiy
> > > > Longer term, yeah, I agree. Kernel's notion of possible CPU
> > > > count
> > > > should be realistic.
> >
> > I did a patch fo
Hi Artem,
At 03/14/2018 11:29 AM, Dou Liyang wrote:
Hi All,
At 03/13/2018 05:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Artem Bityutskiy
wrote:
On Tue, 2018-03-13 at 16:35 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
Then looks this issue need to fix by making possible CPU count
accurate
be
Hi Rafael,
Thank you so much for your reply.
At 03/13/2018 05:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Dou Liyang wrote:
Hi Thomas,
At 03/09/2018 11:08 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
[...]
I'm not sure if there is a clear indicator whether physcial hotplug is
supported
Hi All,
At 03/13/2018 05:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Tue, 2018-03-13 at 16:35 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
Then looks this issue need to fix by making possible CPU count
accurate
because there are other resources allocated according to
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-03-13 at 16:35 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> Then looks this issue need to fix by making possible CPU count
>> accurate
>> because there are other resources allocated according to
>> num_possible_cpus(),
>> such as percpu variable
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Dou Liyang wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> At 03/09/2018 11:08 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> [...]
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if there is a clear indicator whether physcial hotplug is
>> supported or not, but the ACPI folks (x86) and architecture maintainers
>
> +cc Rafael
>
>>
On Tue, 2018-03-13 at 16:35 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Then looks this issue need to fix by making possible CPU count
> accurate
> because there are other resources allocated according to
> num_possible_cpus(),
> such as percpu variables.
Short term the regression should be fixed. It is already v4.1
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 09:38:41AM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-03-13 at 11:11 +0800, Dou Liyang wrote:
> > I also
> > met the situation that BIOS told to ACPI that it could support
> > physical
> > CPUs hotplug, But actually, there was no hardware slots in the
> > machine.
> > th
On Tue, 2018-03-13 at 11:11 +0800, Dou Liyang wrote:
> I also
> met the situation that BIOS told to ACPI that it could support
> physical
> CPUs hotplug, But actually, there was no hardware slots in the
> machine.
> the ACPI tables like user inputs which should be validated when we
> use.
This is
Hi Thomas,
At 03/09/2018 11:08 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
[...]
I'm not sure if there is a clear indicator whether physcial hotplug is
supported or not, but the ACPI folks (x86) and architecture maintainers
+cc Rafael
should be able to answer that question. I have a machine which says:
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 11:08:54AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > So my understanding is that these irq patches are enhancements and not
> > > > bug
> > > > fixes. I'll queue them for 4.17 then.
> > >
> > > Wrt. this IO hang issue, these patches should
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 11:08:54AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:20:09AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > Actually, it isn't a real fix, the real one is in the following two:
> > > >
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:20:09AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > Actually, it isn't a real fix, the real one is in the following two:
> > >
> > > 0c20244d458e scsi: megaraid_sas: fix selection of reply queue
> >
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:00:08AM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 09:24 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:20:09AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > Actually, it isn't a real fix, the real o
On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 09:24 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:20:09AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > Actually, it isn't a real fix, the real one is in the following
> > > two:
> > >
> > > 0c20244d458e scsi: megaraid_s
Hi Thomas,
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:20:09AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Actually, it isn't a real fix, the real one is in the following two:
> >
> > 0c20244d458e scsi: megaraid_sas: fix selection of reply queue
> > ed6d043be8cd scsi: hpsa: fix
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote:
> Actually, it isn't a real fix, the real one is in the following two:
>
> 0c20244d458e scsi: megaraid_sas: fix selection of reply queue
> ed6d043be8cd scsi: hpsa: fix selection of reply queue
Where are these commits? Neither Linus tree not -next kn
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 03:18:33PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 18:53 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This patchset tries to spread among online CPUs as far as possible, so
> > that we can avoid to allocate too less irq vectors with online CPUs
> > mapped.
> >
> >
On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 15:18 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Tested-by: Artem Bityutskiy
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1519311270.2535.53.ca...@intel.com
And for completeness:
Linux-Regression-ID: lr#15a115
On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 18:53 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patchset tries to spread among online CPUs as far as possible, so
> that we can avoid to allocate too less irq vectors with online CPUs
> mapped.
>
> For example, in a 8cores system, 4 cpu cores(4~7) are offline/non present,
> on a
25 matches
Mail list logo