On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 07:41:36PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 19 October 2016 at 15:30, Morten Rasmussen
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:56:51PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> >> >
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 07:41:36PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 19 October 2016 at 15:30, Morten Rasmussen
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:56:51PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> >> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at
On 19 October 2016 at 17:33, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 19/10/16 12:25, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 19 October 2016 at 11:46, Dietmar Eggemann
>> wrote:
>>> On 18/10/16 12:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12
On 19 October 2016 at 17:33, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 19/10/16 12:25, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 19 October 2016 at 11:46, Dietmar Eggemann
>> wrote:
>>> On 18/10/16 12:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> On Tue, Oct
On 19 October 2016 at 15:30, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:56:51PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > > On
On 19 October 2016 at 15:30, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:56:51PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > > On 18 October 2016 at 11:07,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:33:03PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 19/10/16 12:25, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 19 October 2016 at 11:46, Dietmar Eggemann
> > wrote:
> >> On 18/10/16 12:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200),
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:33:03PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 19/10/16 12:25, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 19 October 2016 at 11:46, Dietmar Eggemann
> > wrote:
> >> On 18/10/16 12:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:56:51PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > So
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:56:51PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > So aside from funny BIOSes,
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:56:51PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 -
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 8b03fb5..89776ac 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:56:51PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 -
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 8b03fb5..89776ac 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++
On 18/10/16 12:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
>
> The patch below fixes the
On 18/10/16 12:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
>
> The patch below fixes the issue on my platform:
On 19 October 2016 at 11:46, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 18/10/16 12:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 18 October 2016 at 11:07,
On 19 October 2016 at 11:46, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 18/10/16 12:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>
On 19/10/16 12:25, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 19 October 2016 at 11:46, Dietmar Eggemann
> wrote:
>> On 18/10/16 12:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent
On 19/10/16 12:25, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 19 October 2016 at 11:46, Dietmar Eggemann
> wrote:
>> On 18/10/16 12:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On
On 19 October 2016 at 16:49, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 07:56 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 18 October 2016
On 19 October 2016 at 16:49, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 07:56 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra
On 10/18/2016 07:56 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So aside from funny BIOSes,
On 10/18/2016 07:56 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So aside from funny BIOSes, this should also show up
On 19 October 2016 at 13:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:56:51PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 -
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c
On 19 October 2016 at 13:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:56:51PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 -
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index
On 18 October 2016 at 23:58, Joonwoo Park wrote:
>
>
> On 10/18/2016 04:56 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>
>> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 18 October
On 18 October 2016 at 23:58, Joonwoo Park wrote:
>
>
> On 10/18/2016 04:56 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>
>> Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter
On 10/18/2016 04:56 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So aside from funny BIOSes, this
On 10/18/2016 04:56 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So aside from funny BIOSes, this should also show up when
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:15:11PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 18/10/16 10:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:52:39PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > On IRC you mentioned that adding list_add_leaf_cfs_rq() to
> > online_fair_sched_group() cures this, this would
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:15:11PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 18/10/16 10:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:52:39PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > On IRC you mentioned that adding list_add_leaf_cfs_rq() to
> > online_fair_sched_group() cures this, this would
Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > So aside from funny BIOSes, this should also show up when creating
> > >
Le Tuesday 18 Oct 2016 à 12:34:12 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > So aside from funny BIOSes, this should also show up when creating
> > > cgroups when you have
On 18/10/16 10:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:52:39PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
[...]
>> Using for_each_online_cpu(i) instead of for_each_possible_cpu(i) in
>> online_fair_sched_group() works on this machine, i.e. the .tg_load_avg
>> of system.slice tg is 0 after
On 18/10/16 10:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:52:39PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
[...]
>> Using for_each_online_cpu(i) instead of for_each_possible_cpu(i) in
>> online_fair_sched_group() works on this machine, i.e. the .tg_load_avg
>> of system.slice tg is 0 after
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So aside from funny BIOSes, this should also show up when creating
> > cgroups when you have offlined a few CPUs, which is far more common I'd
> > think.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So aside from funny BIOSes, this should also show up when creating
> > cgroups when you have offlined a few CPUs, which is far more common I'd
> > think.
>
> The problem is
On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:52:39PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>>
>> Something looks weird related to the use of for_each_possible_cpu(i) in
>> online_fair_sched_group() on my i5-3320M CPU (4 logical cpus).
>>
>> In
On 18 October 2016 at 11:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:52:39PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>>
>> Something looks weird related to the use of for_each_possible_cpu(i) in
>> online_fair_sched_group() on my i5-3320M CPU (4 logical cpus).
>>
>> In case I print out cpu id
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:52:39PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>
> Something looks weird related to the use of for_each_possible_cpu(i) in
> online_fair_sched_group() on my i5-3320M CPU (4 logical cpus).
>
> In case I print out cpu id and the cpu masks inside the
> for_each_possible_cpu(i)
>
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:52:39PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>
> Something looks weird related to the use of for_each_possible_cpu(i) in
> online_fair_sched_group() on my i5-3320M CPU (4 logical cpus).
>
> In case I print out cpu id and the cpu masks inside the
> for_each_possible_cpu(i)
>
On 18 October 2016 at 00:52, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 02:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 17 October 2016 at 15:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>
> [...]
>
BTW,
On 18 October 2016 at 00:52, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 10/17/2016 02:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 17 October 2016 at 15:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>
> [...]
>
BTW, I guess we can reach .tg_load_avg up to
On 10/17/2016 02:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 17 October 2016 at 15:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
[...]
>>> BTW, I guess we can reach .tg_load_avg up to ~30-40 on such a system
>>> initially
On 10/17/2016 02:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 17 October 2016 at 15:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
[...]
>>> BTW, I guess we can reach .tg_load_avg up to ~30-40 on such a system
>>> initially because systemd will
On 17 October 2016 at 15:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > index 8b03fb5..8926685 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > +++
On 17 October 2016 at 15:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > index 8b03fb5..8926685 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > @@ -2902,7
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 8b03fb5..8926685 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -2902,7 +2902,8 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 12:49:55PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 8b03fb5..8926685 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -2902,7 +2902,8 @@ __update_load_avg(u64 now, int cpu, struct sched_avg
Hi Vincent,
On 17/10/16 10:09, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Le Friday 14 Oct 2016 à 12:04:02 (-0400), Joseph Salisbury a écrit :
>> On 10/14/2016 11:18 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Le Friday 14 Oct 2016 à 14:10:07 (+0100), Dietmar Eggemann a écrit :
On 14/10/16 09:24, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On 17/10/16 10:09, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Le Friday 14 Oct 2016 à 12:04:02 (-0400), Joseph Salisbury a écrit :
>> On 10/14/2016 11:18 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Le Friday 14 Oct 2016 à 14:10:07 (+0100), Dietmar Eggemann a écrit :
On 14/10/16 09:24, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le Friday 14 Oct 2016 à 12:04:02 (-0400), Joseph Salisbury a écrit :
> On 10/14/2016 11:18 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Le Friday 14 Oct 2016 à 14:10:07 (+0100), Dietmar Eggemann a écrit :
> >> On 14/10/16 09:24, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>> On 13 October 2016 at 23:34, Vincent Guittot
Le Friday 14 Oct 2016 à 12:04:02 (-0400), Joseph Salisbury a écrit :
> On 10/14/2016 11:18 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Le Friday 14 Oct 2016 à 14:10:07 (+0100), Dietmar Eggemann a écrit :
> >> On 14/10/16 09:24, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>> On 13 October 2016 at 23:34, Vincent Guittot
> >>>
On 10/14/2016 11:18 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Le Friday 14 Oct 2016 à 14:10:07 (+0100), Dietmar Eggemann a écrit :
>> On 14/10/16 09:24, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 13 October 2016 at 23:34, Vincent Guittot
>>> wrote:
On 13 October 2016 at 20:49, Dietmar
On 10/14/2016 11:18 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Le Friday 14 Oct 2016 à 14:10:07 (+0100), Dietmar Eggemann a écrit :
>> On 14/10/16 09:24, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 13 October 2016 at 23:34, Vincent Guittot
>>> wrote:
On 13 October 2016 at 20:49, Dietmar Eggemann
wrote:
> On
Le Friday 14 Oct 2016 à 14:10:07 (+0100), Dietmar Eggemann a écrit :
> On 14/10/16 09:24, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 13 October 2016 at 23:34, Vincent Guittot
> > wrote:
> >> On 13 October 2016 at 20:49, Dietmar Eggemann
> >> wrote:
>
Le Friday 14 Oct 2016 à 14:10:07 (+0100), Dietmar Eggemann a écrit :
> On 14/10/16 09:24, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 13 October 2016 at 23:34, Vincent Guittot
> > wrote:
> >> On 13 October 2016 at 20:49, Dietmar Eggemann
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 13/10/16 17:48, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On
On 14/10/16 09:24, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 13 October 2016 at 23:34, Vincent Guittot
> wrote:
>> On 13 October 2016 at 20:49, Dietmar Eggemann
>> wrote:
>>> On 13/10/16 17:48, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 13 October 2016 at 17:52,
On 14/10/16 09:24, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 13 October 2016 at 23:34, Vincent Guittot
> wrote:
>> On 13 October 2016 at 20:49, Dietmar Eggemann
>> wrote:
>>> On 13/10/16 17:48, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 13 October 2016 at 17:52, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 06:58
On 13 October 2016 at 23:34, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 13 October 2016 at 20:49, Dietmar Eggemann
> wrote:
>> On 13/10/16 17:48, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 13 October 2016 at 17:52, Joseph Salisbury
>>>
On 13 October 2016 at 23:34, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 13 October 2016 at 20:49, Dietmar Eggemann
> wrote:
>> On 13/10/16 17:48, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 13 October 2016 at 17:52, Joseph Salisbury
>>> wrote:
On 10/13/2016 06:58 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12
On 13 October 2016 at 20:49, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 13/10/16 17:48, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 13 October 2016 at 17:52, Joseph Salisbury
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2016 06:58 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi,
On 12
On 13 October 2016 at 20:49, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 13/10/16 17:48, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 13 October 2016 at 17:52, Joseph Salisbury
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/13/2016 06:58 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi,
On 12 October 2016 at 18:21, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
> On
On 13/10/16 17:48, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 13 October 2016 at 17:52, Joseph Salisbury
> wrote:
>> On 10/13/2016 06:58 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 12 October 2016 at 18:21, Joseph Salisbury
>>> wrote:
On
On 13/10/16 17:48, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 13 October 2016 at 17:52, Joseph Salisbury
> wrote:
>> On 10/13/2016 06:58 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 12 October 2016 at 18:21, Joseph Salisbury
>>> wrote:
On 10/12/2016 08:20 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8 October
On 13 October 2016 at 17:52, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 06:58 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12 October 2016 at 18:21, Joseph Salisbury
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2016 08:20 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 8
On 13 October 2016 at 17:52, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 06:58 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12 October 2016 at 18:21, Joseph Salisbury
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2016 08:20 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 8 October 2016 at 13:49, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat,
On 10/13/2016 06:58 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12 October 2016 at 18:21, Joseph Salisbury
> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2016 08:20 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 8 October 2016 at 13:49, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37
On 10/13/2016 06:58 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 12 October 2016 at 18:21, Joseph Salisbury
> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2016 08:20 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 8 October 2016 at 13:49, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8
Hi,
On 12 October 2016 at 18:21, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
> On 10/12/2016 08:20 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 8 October 2016 at 13:49, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 8 October 2016 at
Hi,
On 12 October 2016 at 18:21, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
> On 10/12/2016 08:20 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 8 October 2016 at 13:49, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 8 October 2016 at 10:39, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter
On 10/12/2016 08:20 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8 October 2016 at 13:49, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 8 October 2016 at 10:39, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On 10/12/2016 08:20 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8 October 2016 at 13:49, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 8 October 2016 at 10:39, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM -0400,
On 10/12/2016 08:20 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8 October 2016 at 13:49, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 8 October 2016 at 10:39, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On 10/12/2016 08:20 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8 October 2016 at 13:49, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 8 October 2016 at 10:39, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM -0400,
On 8 October 2016 at 13:49, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 8 October 2016 at 10:39, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >
>> > * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM
On 8 October 2016 at 13:49, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 8 October 2016 at 10:39, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >
>> > * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
>> > > > Hello Peter,
On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8 October 2016 at 10:39, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> > > > Hello Peter,
> > > >
> > > > A
On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 13:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8 October 2016 at 10:39, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> > > > Hello Peter,
> > > >
> > > > A kernel bug report was opened against
On 8 October 2016 at 10:39, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
>> > Hello Peter,
>> >
>> > A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. After a kernel
>> > bisect, it
On 8 October 2016 at 10:39, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
>> > Hello Peter,
>> >
>> > A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. After a kernel
>> > bisect, it was found that reverting the following
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> > Hello Peter,
> >
> > A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. After a kernel
> > bisect, it was found that reverting the following commit resolved this bug:
> >
> >
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> > Hello Peter,
> >
> > A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. After a kernel
> > bisect, it was found that reverting the following commit resolved this bug:
> >
> > commit
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> Hello Peter,
>
> A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. After a kernel
> bisect, it was found that reverting the following commit resolved this bug:
>
> commit 3d30544f02120b884bba2a9466c87dba980e3be5
> Author:
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> Hello Peter,
>
> A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. After a kernel
> bisect, it was found that reverting the following commit resolved this bug:
>
> commit 3d30544f02120b884bba2a9466c87dba980e3be5
> Author:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
>
> Yes, CONFIG_SCHED_AUTOGROUP is enabled in the Ubuntu kernel. However,
> that config was also enable in the Ubuntu 4.4 kerrnels without seeing
> this issue. I can try disabling the config in the 4.8
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
>
> Yes, CONFIG_SCHED_AUTOGROUP is enabled in the Ubuntu kernel. However,
> that config was also enable in the Ubuntu 4.4 kerrnels without seeing
> this issue. I can try disabling the config in the 4.8 based kernel and
> see if that
On 10/07/2016 03:57 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Joseph Salisbury
> wrote:
>> A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. After a kernel
>> bisect, it was found that reverting the following commit resolved this bug:
> Hmm.
On 10/07/2016 03:57 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Joseph Salisbury
> wrote:
>> A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. After a kernel
>> bisect, it was found that reverting the following commit resolved this bug:
> Hmm. Interesting, and it sounds like we
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
>
> A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. After a kernel
> bisect, it was found that reverting the following commit resolved this bug:
Hmm. Interesting, and it sounds like we should revert that
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Joseph Salisbury
wrote:
>
> A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. After a kernel
> bisect, it was found that reverting the following commit resolved this bug:
Hmm. Interesting, and it sounds like we should revert that unless
somebody figures out
Hello Peter,
A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. After a kernel
bisect, it was found that reverting the following commit resolved this bug:
commit 3d30544f02120b884bba2a9466c87dba980e3be5
Author: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Tue Jun 21 14:27:50 2016 +0200
Hello Peter,
A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. After a kernel
bisect, it was found that reverting the following commit resolved this bug:
commit 3d30544f02120b884bba2a9466c87dba980e3be5
Author: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Tue Jun 21 14:27:50 2016 +0200
sched/fair: Apply more
92 matches
Mail list logo