On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 11:31:02AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 12:51:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 12:50:05PM +0200, Tobias Huschle wrote:
<...>
> >
> > I'm still wondering why exactly it is impe
On Wed, May 01, 2024 at 12:51:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 12:50:05PM +0200, Tobias Huschle wrote:
<...>
> >
> > Let's now assume, that ocassionally, task 2 runs a little bit longer than
> > task 1. In CFS, this means, that task 2
It took me a while, but I was able to figure out why EEVDF behaves
different then CFS does. I'm still waiting for some official confirmation
of my assumptions but it all seems very plausible to me.
Leaving aside all the specifics of vhost and kworkers, a more general
description of the scenario
On 2024-03-19 09:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 09:21:06AM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
On 2024-03-15 11:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 09:33:49AM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 11:09:25AM -0400, Michael S. Tsir
On 2024-03-15 11:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 09:33:49AM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 11:09:25AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
Could you remind me pls, what is the kworker doing specifically that
vhost is relying on?
The kwor
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 11:09:25AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot! To clarify it is not that I am opposed to changing vhost.
> I would like however for some documentation to exist saying that if you
> do abc then call API xyz. Then I hope we can feel a bit safer that
> future
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 09:45:57AM +, Luis Machado wrote:
> On 3/11/24 17:05, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > Are we going anywhere with this btw?
> >
> >
>
> I think Tobias had a couple other threads related to this, with other
> potential fixes:
>
>
On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 03:08:07AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 08:38:43AM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 01:44:32PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 02:13:25PM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
>
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 01:44:32PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 02:13:25PM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 02:14:59AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > - Along with the wakeup of the kworker, need_resched needs
On Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 01:44:32PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 02:13:25PM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 02:14:59AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter, would appreciate feedback on
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 02:14:59AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> Peter, would appreciate feedback on this. When is cond_resched()
> insufficient to give up the CPU? Should
> Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst
> be updated to require schedule() instead?
>
Happy new year everybody!
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 07:00:53AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:37:23AM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 11:15:01AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 11:00:12AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 11:15:01AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 11:00:12AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 12:54 AM Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
We played around with the suggestions and some other ideas.
I would like to share some initial results.
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 05:31:18AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 10:24:16AM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 01:48:40AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 07:22:12AM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote
On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 01:48:40AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 07:22:12AM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> > 3. vhost looping endlessly, waiting for kworker to be scheduled
> >
> > I dug a little deeper on what the vhost is doing. I'm not an
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:55:11PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
> On 11/27/23 9:56 PM, Tobias Huschle Wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:00:16AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 02:17:21PM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
[...]
>
> What are the wei
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 04:55:11PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
> On 11/27/23 9:56 PM, Tobias Huschle Wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:00:16AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 02:17:21PM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
[...]
> > - At depth 4, the c
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:00:16AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 02:17:21PM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
>
> The below should also work for internal entities, but last time I poked
> around with it I had some regressions elsewhere -- you know, fix one,
>
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 09:07:55PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
> On 11/17/23 8:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra Wrote:
[...]
> > Ah, so if this is a cgroup issue, it might be worth trying this patch
> > that we have in tip/sched/urgent.
>
> And please also apply this fix:
>
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 10:23:18AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Your email is pretty badly mangled by wrapping, please try and
> reconfigure your MUA, esp. the trace and debug output is unreadable.
Just saw that .. sorry, will append the trace and latency data again.
[...]
>
> So bear
Hi,
when testing the EEVDF scheduler we stumbled upon a performance
regression in a uperf scenario and would like to
kindly ask for feedback on whether we are going into the right direction
with our analysis so far.
The base scenario are two KVM guests running on an s390 LPAR. One guest
21 matches
Mail list logo
