On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 07:37:39PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 07:00:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > rcu: Fix comparison sense in rcu_needs_cpu()
> >
> > Commit c0f4dfd4f (rcu: Make RCU_FAST_NO_HZ take advantage of numbered
> > callbacks) introduced
Hi Paul,
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 07:00:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> rcu: Fix comparison sense in rcu_needs_cpu()
>
> Commit c0f4dfd4f (rcu: Make RCU_FAST_NO_HZ take advantage of numbered
> callbacks) introduced a bug that can result in excessively long grace
> periods. This bug reverse
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:13:34PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" writes:
>
> > We don't want to back out the RCU_FAST_NO_HZ changes due to their
> > energy-efficiency benefits.
>
> Yes, that's what I assumed. Just didn't know where to start dissecting
> it...
>
> > So could
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:13:34PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com writes:
We don't want to back out the RCU_FAST_NO_HZ changes due to their
energy-efficiency benefits.
Yes, that's what I assumed. Just didn't know where to start dissecting
it...
Hi Paul,
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 07:00:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
rcu: Fix comparison sense in rcu_needs_cpu()
Commit c0f4dfd4f (rcu: Make RCU_FAST_NO_HZ take advantage of numbered
callbacks) introduced a bug that can result in excessively long grace
periods. This bug reverse the
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 07:37:39PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 07:00:05AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
rcu: Fix comparison sense in rcu_needs_cpu()
Commit c0f4dfd4f (rcu: Make RCU_FAST_NO_HZ take advantage of numbered
callbacks) introduced a bug that
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:35:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:34:30PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 01:57:48PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > That does look pretty extreme! If you build with CONFIG_RCU_NO_HZ=n,
> > > but without the
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 07:20:58 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:56:40PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > Borislav Petkov writes:
> > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:13:34PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > >> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > >> index
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:35:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:34:30PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > With CONFIG_RCU_NO_HZ=n (and no revert) the system boots fine, no boot
> > delay. I also enabled some RCU debugging options (with
> > CONFIG_RCU_NO_HZ=y), but
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:35:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:34:30PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
With CONFIG_RCU_NO_HZ=n (and no revert) the system boots fine, no boot
delay. I also enabled some RCU debugging options (with
CONFIG_RCU_NO_HZ=y), but didn't see
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 07:20:58 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:56:40PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de writes:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:13:34PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:35:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:34:30PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 01:57:48PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
That does look pretty extreme! If you build with CONFIG_RCU_NO_HZ=n,
but without the revert,
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:34:30PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 01:57:48PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > That does look pretty extreme! If you build with CONFIG_RCU_NO_HZ=n,
> > but without the revert, do you still get the delays?
>
> With CONFIG_RCU_NO_HZ=n (and no
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 01:57:48PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> That does look pretty extreme! If you build with CONFIG_RCU_NO_HZ=n,
> but without the revert, do you still get the delays?
With CONFIG_RCU_NO_HZ=n (and no revert) the system boots fine, no boot
delay. I also enabled some RCU
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 08:29:35PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 04:31:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:04:50PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > > Bisecting it ended up pointing to
> > >
> > > commit
Hi Paul,
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 04:31:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:04:50PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > Bisecting it ended up pointing to
> >
> > commit c0f4dfd4f90f1667d234d21f15153ea09a2eaa66
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney
> > Date: Fri Dec 28 11:30:36
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:56:40PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Borislav Petkov writes:
> > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:13:34PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> >> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> >> index 6934238..2dcbf84 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
>
Borislav Petkov writes:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:13:34PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
>> index 6934238..2dcbf84 100644
>> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
>> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
>> @@ -3103,9 +3103,11 @@ static int rcu_pm_notify(struct notifier_block
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:13:34PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> index 6934238..2dcbf84 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> @@ -3103,9 +3103,11 @@ static int rcu_pm_notify(struct notifier_block *self,
> {
> switch
"Paul E. McKenney" writes:
> We don't want to back out the RCU_FAST_NO_HZ changes due to their
> energy-efficiency benefits.
Yes, that's what I assumed. Just didn't know where to start dissecting
it...
> So could you please try out Borislav's
> patch below? He ran into the same issue a few
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:04:50PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Hello,
>
> resuming from system suspend is intolerably slow in current mainline. I
> am not the most patient person around, and I actually started out
> bisecting this believing it was hanging... Turned out it wasn't really
> hanging.
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:04:50PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Hello,
resuming from system suspend is intolerably slow in current mainline. I
am not the most patient person around, and I actually started out
bisecting this believing it was hanging... Turned out it wasn't really
hanging. It
Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com writes:
We don't want to back out the RCU_FAST_NO_HZ changes due to their
energy-efficiency benefits.
Yes, that's what I assumed. Just didn't know where to start dissecting
it...
So could you please try out Borislav's
patch below? He ran into
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:13:34PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index 6934238..2dcbf84 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -3103,9 +3103,11 @@ static int rcu_pm_notify(struct notifier_block *self,
{
switch (action) {
Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de writes:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:13:34PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index 6934238..2dcbf84 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
@@ -3103,9 +3103,11 @@ static int rcu_pm_notify(struct
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:56:40PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de writes:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 06:13:34PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
index 6934238..2dcbf84 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
Hi Paul,
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 04:31:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:04:50PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Bisecting it ended up pointing to
commit c0f4dfd4f90f1667d234d21f15153ea09a2eaa66
Author: Paul E. McKenney paul.mcken...@linaro.org
Date: Fri Dec 28
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 08:29:35PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 04:31:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:04:50PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Bisecting it ended up pointing to
commit c0f4dfd4f90f1667d234d21f15153ea09a2eaa66
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 01:57:48PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
That does look pretty extreme! If you build with CONFIG_RCU_NO_HZ=n,
but without the revert, do you still get the delays?
With CONFIG_RCU_NO_HZ=n (and no revert) the system boots fine, no boot
delay. I also enabled some RCU
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:34:30PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 01:57:48PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
That does look pretty extreme! If you build with CONFIG_RCU_NO_HZ=n,
but without the revert, do you still get the delays?
With CONFIG_RCU_NO_HZ=n (and no revert)
30 matches
Mail list logo