On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:39:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:22:20PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > The RCU context tracking doesn't take care of callbacks. It's only there
> > to tell the RCU core whether the CPU runs code that may or may not run
> > RCU
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:22:20PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 10:28:00AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > Unless I'm missing something (which is reasonably likely), couldn't
> > the isolation code just force or require rcu_nocbs on the isolated
> > CPUs to
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 04:22:20PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> The RCU context tracking doesn't take care of callbacks. It's only there
> to tell the RCU core whether the CPU runs code that may or may not run
> RCU read side critical sections. This is assumed by "kernel may use RCU,
>
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 10:28:00AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Unless I'm missing something (which is reasonably likely), couldn't
> the isolation code just force or require rcu_nocbs on the isolated
> CPUs to avoid this problem entirely.
rcu_nocb is already implied by nohz_full. Which
On 9/12/2016 1:41 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Sep 9, 2016 1:40 PM, "Chris Metcalf" wrote:
On 9/2/2016 1:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Sep 2, 2016 7:04 AM, "Chris Metcalf" wrote:
On 8/30/2016 3:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30,
On 9/2/2016 1:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Sep 2, 2016 7:04 AM, "Chris Metcalf" wrote:
On 8/30/2016 3:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 8/30/2016 2:43 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
What if
On Sep 2, 2016 7:04 AM, "Chris Metcalf" wrote:
>
> On 8/30/2016 3:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Chris Metcalf
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/30/2016 2:43 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
What if we did it the
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 10:03:52AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> Any thoughts on the question of "just re-enter the loop" vs.
> schedule_timeout()?
schedule_timeout() should only be used for things you do not have
control over, like things outside of the machine.
If you want to actually block
On 8/30/2016 3:50 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 8/30/2016 2:43 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
What if we did it the other way around: set a percpu flag saying
"going quiescent; disallow new deferred work", then finish
On 9/1/2016 6:06 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:32:16AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 8/30/2016 3:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
What !? I really don't get this, what are you waiting for? Why is
rescheduling making things better.
We need to wait for the last dyntick to
On 8/30/2016 2:43 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Aug 30, 2016 10:02 AM, "Chris Metcalf" wrote:
On 8/30/2016 12:30 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
The basic idea is just that we don't want to be at
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 8/30/2016 2:43 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2016 10:02 AM, "Chris Metcalf" wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/30/2016 12:30 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:32
On Aug 30, 2016 10:02 AM, "Chris Metcalf" wrote:
>
> On 8/30/2016 12:30 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/30/2016 3:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at
On 8/30/2016 12:30 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 8/30/2016 3:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:40:32PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 8/29/2016 12:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16,
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:40:32PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 8/29/2016 12:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 05:19:27PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> >>+ /*
> >>+* Request rescheduling unless we are in full dynticks mode.
> >>+* We would eventually get
On 8/29/2016 12:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 05:19:27PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
+ /*
+* Request rescheduling unless we are in full dynticks mode.
+* We would eventually get pre-empted without this, and if
+* there's another task waiting,
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:40:32PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 8/29/2016 12:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 05:19:27PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> >>+ /*
> >>+* Request rescheduling unless we are in full dynticks mode.
> >>+* We would eventually get
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 05:19:27PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> + /*
> + * Request rescheduling unless we are in full dynticks mode.
> + * We would eventually get pre-empted without this, and if
> + * there's another task waiting, it would run; but by
> + * explicitly
18 matches
Mail list logo