On 11/12/2012 06:27 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> Hey Prarit,
> Just back from being on leave, and wanted to check in on this. Did you
> ever
> get to run with an increase sample size to see how that affected things? Its
> exactly your point that the non-NOHZ case could align the execution of
On 11/12/2012 06:27 PM, John Stultz wrote:
Hey Prarit,
Just back from being on leave, and wanted to check in on this. Did you
ever
get to run with an increase sample size to see how that affected things? Its
exactly your point that the non-NOHZ case could align the execution of a
On 10/12/2012 08:40 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
One possibility is that if the cpu we're doing our timekeeping
accumulation on is different then the one running the test, we might
go into deeper idle for longer periods of time. Then when we
accumulate time, we have more then a single tick to
On 10/12/2012 08:40 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
One possibility is that if the cpu we're doing our timekeeping
accumulation on is different then the one running the test, we might
go into deeper idle for longer periods of time. Then when we
accumulate time, we have more then a single tick to
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:40:44AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 04:21 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:51:44PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
[ . . . ]
> >> One possibility is that if the cpu we're doing our timekeeping
> >> accumulation on is different then
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:40:44AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
On 10/11/2012 04:21 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:51:44PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
[ . . . ]
One possibility is that if the cpu we're doing our timekeeping
accumulation on is different then the one
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 02:27:01PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
> > The effect of removing the two functions you noted (on 3.6 and earlier)
> > is to prevent RCU from checking for dyntick-idle CPUs, likely incurring
> > a cache miss for each CPU with interrupts disabled. If you have a lot
> >
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 02:27:01PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
The effect of removing the two functions you noted (on 3.6 and earlier)
is to prevent RCU from checking for dyntick-idle CPUs, likely incurring
a cache miss for each CPU with interrupts disabled. If you have a lot
of CPUs
> The effect of removing the two functions you noted (on 3.6 and earlier)
> is to prevent RCU from checking for dyntick-idle CPUs, likely incurring
> a cache miss for each CPU with interrupts disabled. If you have a lot
> of CPUs (or even if NR_CPUS is large and you have a smaller number of
>
On 10/11/2012 04:21 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:51:44PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> On 10/11/2012 11:52 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>> I've been tracking an odd bug that may involve the RCU NOHZ code and
>>> just want to know if you have any ideas on debugging
On 10/11/2012 04:21 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:51:44PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 10/11/2012 11:52 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
I've been tracking an odd bug that may involve the RCU NOHZ code and
just want to know if you have any ideas on debugging and/or what
The effect of removing the two functions you noted (on 3.6 and earlier)
is to prevent RCU from checking for dyntick-idle CPUs, likely incurring
a cache miss for each CPU with interrupts disabled. If you have a lot
of CPUs (or even if NR_CPUS is large and you have a smaller number of
CPUs),
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:51:44PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 11:52 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> >I've been tracking an odd bug that may involve the RCU NOHZ code and
> >just want to know if you have any ideas on debugging and/or what might be
> >wrong. Note the bug happens on
On 10/11/2012 11:52 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
I've been tracking an odd bug that may involve the RCU NOHZ code and
just want to know if you have any ideas on debugging and/or what might be
wrong. Note the bug happens on *BOTH* upstream and the current RHEL6 tree.
The data in this email is from
I've been tracking an odd bug that may involve the RCU NOHZ code and
just want to know if you have any ideas on debugging and/or what might be
wrong. Note the bug happens on *BOTH* upstream and the current RHEL6 tree.
The data in this email is from running on RHEL6 because that's what I happen
to
I've been tracking an odd bug that may involve the RCU NOHZ code and
just want to know if you have any ideas on debugging and/or what might be
wrong. Note the bug happens on *BOTH* upstream and the current RHEL6 tree.
The data in this email is from running on RHEL6 because that's what I happen
to
On 10/11/2012 11:52 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
I've been tracking an odd bug that may involve the RCU NOHZ code and
just want to know if you have any ideas on debugging and/or what might be
wrong. Note the bug happens on *BOTH* upstream and the current RHEL6 tree.
The data in this email is from
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:51:44PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
On 10/11/2012 11:52 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
I've been tracking an odd bug that may involve the RCU NOHZ code and
just want to know if you have any ideas on debugging and/or what might be
wrong. Note the bug happens on *BOTH*
18 matches
Mail list logo
