On 9/27/2016 10:35 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On 8/16/2016 5:19 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
Here is a respin of the task-isolation patch set.
Again, I have been getting email asking me when and where this patch
will be upstreamed so folks can start using it. I had been thinking
the obvious
On 9/27/2016 10:35 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On 8/16/2016 5:19 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
Here is a respin of the task-isolation patch set.
Again, I have been getting email asking me when and where this patch
will be upstreamed so folks can start using it. I had been thinking
the obvious
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 08:20:16PM -0400, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
>
> The args are valid, but the system has an unstable clock, therefore the
> operation is not supported. In the user point of view, maybe ENOTSUPP
> would be more appropriate? But then, we need to check the reason and
>
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 08:20:16PM -0400, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
>
> The args are valid, but the system has an unstable clock, therefore the
> operation is not supported. In the user point of view, maybe ENOTSUPP
> would be more appropriate? But then, we need to check the reason and
>
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:27:06PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 8/16/2016 5:19 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> >Here is a respin of the task-isolation patch set.
> >
> >Again, I have been getting email asking me when and where this patch
> >will be upstreamed so folks can start using it. I had
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:27:06PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 8/16/2016 5:19 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> >Here is a respin of the task-isolation patch set.
> >
> >Again, I have been getting email asking me when and where this patch
> >will be upstreamed so folks can start using it. I had
Thanks for your explanation of the TIF_TASK_ISOLATION
flag being needed for x86 _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY.
It makes perfect sense in retrospect :-)
On 9/12/2016 8:20 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
On a side note, the NOSIG mode may be confusing for the users. At first,
I was expecting that NOSIG
Thanks for your explanation of the TIF_TASK_ISOLATION
flag being needed for x86 _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY.
It makes perfect sense in retrospect :-)
On 9/12/2016 8:20 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
On a side note, the NOSIG mode may be confusing for the users. At first,
I was expecting that NOSIG
On 2016-09-12 08:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2016 11:15:45 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Monday, September 12, 2016 06:14:44 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:01:58PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 9/7/2016 5:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau
On 2016-09-12 08:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2016 11:15:45 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Monday, September 12, 2016 06:14:44 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:01:58PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 9/7/2016 5:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau
On 2016-09-12 12:01 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> The syscall test fails on x86:
>>
>> $ sudo ./isolation
>> [...]
>> test_syscall: FAIL (0x100)
>> test_syscall (SIGUSR1): FAIL (0x100)
>
> Your next email suggested adding TIF_TASK_ISOLATION to the set of
> flags in
On 2016-09-12 12:01 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> The syscall test fails on x86:
>>
>> $ sudo ./isolation
>> [...]
>> test_syscall: FAIL (0x100)
>> test_syscall (SIGUSR1): FAIL (0x100)
>
> Your next email suggested adding TIF_TASK_ISOLATION to the set of
> flags in
On Monday, September 12, 2016 11:15:45 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2016 06:14:44 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:01:58PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > > On 9/7/2016 5:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
> > > >When running only the test_jitter(),
On Monday, September 12, 2016 11:15:45 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2016 06:14:44 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:01:58PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > > On 9/7/2016 5:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
> > > >When running only the test_jitter(),
On Monday, September 12, 2016 06:14:44 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:01:58PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > On 9/7/2016 5:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
> > >When running only the test_jitter(), the isolation mode is lost:
> > >
> > > [ 6741.566048] isolation/9515:
On Monday, September 12, 2016 06:14:44 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:01:58PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > On 9/7/2016 5:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
> > >When running only the test_jitter(), the isolation mode is lost:
> > >
> > > [ 6741.566048] isolation/9515:
On 9/7/2016 5:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
On 2016-08-29 12:27 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 8/16/2016 5:19 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
Here is a respin of the task-isolation patch set.
No concerns have been raised yet with the v15 version of the patch series
in the two weeks since I posted it,
On 9/7/2016 5:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
On 2016-08-29 12:27 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
On 8/16/2016 5:19 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
Here is a respin of the task-isolation patch set.
No concerns have been raised yet with the v15 version of the patch series
in the two weeks since I posted it,
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:01:58PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 9/7/2016 5:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
> >When running only the test_jitter(), the isolation mode is lost:
> >
> > [ 6741.566048] isolation/9515: task_isolation mode lost due to irq_work
> >
> >With ftrace
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:01:58PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 9/7/2016 5:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
> >When running only the test_jitter(), the isolation mode is lost:
> >
> > [ 6741.566048] isolation/9515: task_isolation mode lost due to irq_work
> >
> >With ftrace
On 2016-09-07 05:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
> The syscall test fails on x86:
> $ sudo ./isolation
> [...]
> test_syscall: FAIL (0x100)
> test_syscall (SIGUSR1): FAIL (0x100)
The fix is indeed very simple:
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
On 2016-09-07 05:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
> The syscall test fails on x86:
> $ sudo ./isolation
> [...]
> test_syscall: FAIL (0x100)
> test_syscall (SIGUSR1): FAIL (0x100)
The fix is indeed very simple:
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
On 2016-09-07 05:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
> The syscall test fails on x86:
> $ sudo ./isolation
> [...]
> test_syscall: FAIL (0x100)
> test_syscall (SIGUSR1): FAIL (0x100)
>
> I wanted to debug this problem with gdb and a KVM virtual machine. However,
> the TSC clock source
On 2016-09-07 05:11 PM, Francis Giraldeau wrote:
> The syscall test fails on x86:
> $ sudo ./isolation
> [...]
> test_syscall: FAIL (0x100)
> test_syscall (SIGUSR1): FAIL (0x100)
>
> I wanted to debug this problem with gdb and a KVM virtual machine. However,
> the TSC clock source
On 2016-08-29 12:27 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 8/16/2016 5:19 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> Here is a respin of the task-isolation patch set.
>
> No concerns have been raised yet with the v15 version of the patch series
> in the two weeks since I posted it, and I think I have addressed all
>
On 2016-08-29 12:27 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 8/16/2016 5:19 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> Here is a respin of the task-isolation patch set.
>
> No concerns have been raised yet with the v15 version of the patch series
> in the two weeks since I posted it, and I think I have addressed all
>
On 8/16/2016 5:19 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
Here is a respin of the task-isolation patch set.
Again, I have been getting email asking me when and where this patch
will be upstreamed so folks can start using it. I had been thinking
the obvious path was via Frederic Weisbecker to Ingo as a NOHZ
On 8/16/2016 5:19 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
Here is a respin of the task-isolation patch set.
Again, I have been getting email asking me when and where this patch
will be upstreamed so folks can start using it. I had been thinking
the obvious path was via Frederic Weisbecker to Ingo as a NOHZ
28 matches
Mail list logo
