On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:26:44 -0500
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> +static int find_next_push_cpu(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> + struct rq *next_rq;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + while (1) {
> + cpu = rto_next_cpu(rq);
> + if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> + break;
> +
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 22:26:44 -0500
Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
+static int find_next_push_cpu(struct rq *rq)
+{
+ struct rq *next_rq;
+ int cpu;
+
+ while (1) {
+ cpu = rto_next_cpu(rq);
+ if (cpu = nr_cpu_ids)
+
When debugging the latencies on a 40 core box, where we hit 300 to
500 microsecond latencies, I found there was a huge contention on the
runqueue locks.
Investigating it further, running ftrace, I found that it was due to
the pulling of RT tasks.
The test that was run was the following:
When debugging the latencies on a 40 core box, where we hit 300 to
500 microsecond latencies, I found there was a huge contention on the
runqueue locks.
Investigating it further, running ftrace, I found that it was due to
the pulling of RT tasks.
The test that was run was the following:
4 matches
Mail list logo
