On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 04:32:00PM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Catalin Marinas
> wrote:
> > Since you mention symmetry, something like below makes the barriers more
> > explicit.
>
> Borken, for two reasons:
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Catalin Marinas
wrote:
>
> Since you mention symmetry, something like below makes the barriers more
> explicit.
Borken, for two reasons:
> diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
> index f3a3a071283c..5b9d857d0816 100644
> --- a/kernel/futex.c
> +++
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:11:40AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 13:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Davidlohr Bueso
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And [get/put]_futex_keys() shouldn't
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 09:19:50PM +0100, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 14:32 -0500, Darren Hart wrote:
> > Which is not incomplete (lacking the explicit smp_mb()) added by this
> > patch. Perhaps the MB implementation of get_futex_key_refs() need not be
> > explicitly enumerated
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 13:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > >
> > > And [get/put]_futex_keys() shouldn't even be called for private futexes.
> > > The following patch had some very minor
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 13:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Davidlohr Bueso d...@stgolabs.net wrote:
And [get/put]_futex_keys() shouldn't even be called for private futexes.
The following patch had some very
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 09:19:50PM +0100, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 14:32 -0500, Darren Hart wrote:
Which is not incomplete (lacking the explicit smp_mb()) added by this
patch. Perhaps the MB implementation of get_futex_key_refs() need not be
explicitly enumerated here?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:11:40AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 13:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Davidlohr Bueso d...@stgolabs.net
wrote:
And [get/put]_futex_keys() shouldn't
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Catalin Marinas
catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
Since you mention symmetry, something like below makes the barriers more
explicit.
Borken, for two reasons:
diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
index f3a3a071283c..5b9d857d0816 100644
---
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 04:32:00PM +0100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Catalin Marinas
catalin.mari...@arm.com wrote:
Since you mention symmetry, something like below makes the barriers more
explicit.
Borken, for two reasons:
diff --git a/kernel/futex.c
On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 13:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >
> > And [get/put]_futex_keys() shouldn't even be called for private futexes.
> > The following patch had some very minor testing on a 60 core box last
> > night, but passes both
On October 18, 2014 3:19:50 PM CDT, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 14:32 -0500, Darren Hart wrote:
>> Which is not incomplete (lacking the explicit smp_mb()) added by this
>> patch. Perhaps the MB implementation of get_futex_key_refs() need not
>be
>> explicitly enumerated here?
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> And [get/put]_futex_keys() shouldn't even be called for private futexes.
> The following patch had some very minor testing on a 60 core box last
> night, but passes both Darren's and perf's tests. So I *think* this is
> right, but lack
On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 14:32 -0500, Darren Hart wrote:
> Which is not incomplete (lacking the explicit smp_mb()) added by this
> patch. Perhaps the MB implementation of get_futex_key_refs() need not be
> explicitly enumerated here?
Agreed, how about this:
diff --git a/kernel/futex.c
On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 00:33 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 17:38 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > Commit b0c29f79ecea (futexes: Avoid taking the hb->lock if there's
> > nothing to wake up) changes the futex code to avoid taking a lock when
> > there are no waiters. This
On 10/17/14 11:38, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Commit b0c29f79ecea (futexes: Avoid taking the hb->lock if there's
> nothing to wake up) changes the futex code to avoid taking a lock when
> there are no waiters. This code has been subsequently fixed in commit
> 11d4616bd07f (futex: revert back to the
On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 08:28 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Mike Galbraith
> wrote:
> >
> > The barrier fixing up my problematic box smells a lot like evidence.
>
> Is this a "tested-by"? Did you actuallyu verify that the patch ends up
> fixing the problem you
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Mike Galbraith
wrote:
>
> The barrier fixing up my problematic box smells a lot like evidence.
Is this a "tested-by"? Did you actuallyu verify that the patch ends up
fixing the problem you saw?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 17:38 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Commit b0c29f79ecea (futexes: Avoid taking the hb->lock if there's
> nothing to wake up) changes the futex code to avoid taking a lock when
> there are no waiters. This code has been subsequently fixed in commit
> 11d4616bd07f (futex:
(fixes Davidlohr bounce)
On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 08:54 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 17:38 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > Commit b0c29f79ecea (futexes: Avoid taking the hb->lock if there's
> > nothing to wake up) changes the futex code to avoid taking a lock when
> >
On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 17:38 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> Commit b0c29f79ecea (futexes: Avoid taking the hb->lock if there's
> nothing to wake up) changes the futex code to avoid taking a lock when
> there are no waiters. This code has been subsequently fixed in commit
> 11d4616bd07f (futex:
On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 17:38 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Commit b0c29f79ecea (futexes: Avoid taking the hb-lock if there's
nothing to wake up) changes the futex code to avoid taking a lock when
there are no waiters. This code has been subsequently fixed in commit
11d4616bd07f (futex: revert
(fixes Davidlohr bounce)
On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 08:54 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 17:38 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Commit b0c29f79ecea (futexes: Avoid taking the hb-lock if there's
nothing to wake up) changes the futex code to avoid taking a lock when
there are
On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 17:38 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Commit b0c29f79ecea (futexes: Avoid taking the hb-lock if there's
nothing to wake up) changes the futex code to avoid taking a lock when
there are no waiters. This code has been subsequently fixed in commit
11d4616bd07f (futex: revert
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Mike Galbraith
umgwanakikb...@gmail.com wrote:
The barrier fixing up my problematic box smells a lot like evidence.
Is this a tested-by? Did you actuallyu verify that the patch ends up
fixing the problem you saw?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this
On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 08:28 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Mike Galbraith
umgwanakikb...@gmail.com wrote:
The barrier fixing up my problematic box smells a lot like evidence.
Is this a tested-by? Did you actuallyu verify that the patch ends up
fixing the
On 10/17/14 11:38, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Commit b0c29f79ecea (futexes: Avoid taking the hb-lock if there's
nothing to wake up) changes the futex code to avoid taking a lock when
there are no waiters. This code has been subsequently fixed in commit
11d4616bd07f (futex: revert back to the
On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 00:33 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 17:38 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
Commit b0c29f79ecea (futexes: Avoid taking the hb-lock if there's
nothing to wake up) changes the futex code to avoid taking a lock when
there are no waiters. This code has
On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 14:32 -0500, Darren Hart wrote:
Which is not incomplete (lacking the explicit smp_mb()) added by this
patch. Perhaps the MB implementation of get_futex_key_refs() need not be
explicitly enumerated here?
Agreed, how about this:
diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Davidlohr Bueso d...@stgolabs.net wrote:
And [get/put]_futex_keys() shouldn't even be called for private futexes.
The following patch had some very minor testing on a 60 core box last
night, but passes both Darren's and perf's tests. So I *think* this is
On October 18, 2014 3:19:50 PM CDT, Davidlohr Bueso d...@stgolabs.net wrote:
On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 14:32 -0500, Darren Hart wrote:
Which is not incomplete (lacking the explicit smp_mb()) added by this
patch. Perhaps the MB implementation of get_futex_key_refs() need not
be
explicitly
On Sat, 2014-10-18 at 13:50 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Davidlohr Bueso d...@stgolabs.net wrote:
And [get/put]_futex_keys() shouldn't even be called for private futexes.
The following patch had some very minor testing on a 60 core box last
night, but
Commit b0c29f79ecea (futexes: Avoid taking the hb->lock if there's
nothing to wake up) changes the futex code to avoid taking a lock when
there are no waiters. This code has been subsequently fixed in commit
11d4616bd07f (futex: revert back to the explicit waiter counting code).
Both the original
Commit b0c29f79ecea (futexes: Avoid taking the hb-lock if there's
nothing to wake up) changes the futex code to avoid taking a lock when
there are no waiters. This code has been subsequently fixed in commit
11d4616bd07f (futex: revert back to the explicit waiter counting code).
Both the original
34 matches
Mail list logo
