On 12/02/16 10:14, Donald Buczek wrote:
On 11/30/16 12:43, Donald Buczek wrote:
On 11/30/16 12:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
[CCing Paul]
On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
[...]
shrink_active_list gets and releases the spinlock and calls
cond_resched().
This should give other tasks a
On 12/02/16 10:14, Donald Buczek wrote:
On 11/30/16 12:43, Donald Buczek wrote:
On 11/30/16 12:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
[CCing Paul]
On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
[...]
shrink_active_list gets and releases the spinlock and calls
cond_resched().
This should give other tasks a
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 06:02:49PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 02-12-16 08:44:08, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 07:39:24PM +0300, Boris Zhmurov wrote:
> > > Paul E. McKenney Thu Dec 01 2016 - 14:39:21 EST:
> > >
> > > >> Well, I can confirm, that replacing
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 06:02:49PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 02-12-16 08:44:08, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 07:39:24PM +0300, Boris Zhmurov wrote:
> > > Paul E. McKenney Thu Dec 01 2016 - 14:39:21 EST:
> > >
> > > >> Well, I can confirm, that replacing
On Fri 02-12-16 08:44:08, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 07:39:24PM +0300, Boris Zhmurov wrote:
> > Paul E. McKenney Thu Dec 01 2016 - 14:39:21 EST:
> >
> > >> Well, I can confirm, that replacing cond_resched_rcu_qs in
> > >> shrink_node_memcg by cond_resched also makes dmesg
On Fri 02-12-16 08:44:08, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 07:39:24PM +0300, Boris Zhmurov wrote:
> > Paul E. McKenney Thu Dec 01 2016 - 14:39:21 EST:
> >
> > >> Well, I can confirm, that replacing cond_resched_rcu_qs in
> > >> shrink_node_memcg by cond_resched also makes dmesg
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 07:39:24PM +0300, Boris Zhmurov wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney Thu Dec 01 2016 - 14:39:21 EST:
>
> >> Well, I can confirm, that replacing cond_resched_rcu_qs in
> >> shrink_node_memcg by cond_resched also makes dmesg clean from RCU
> >> CPU stall warnings.
> >>
> >> I've
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 07:39:24PM +0300, Boris Zhmurov wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney Thu Dec 01 2016 - 14:39:21 EST:
>
> >> Well, I can confirm, that replacing cond_resched_rcu_qs in
> >> shrink_node_memcg by cond_resched also makes dmesg clean from RCU
> >> CPU stall warnings.
> >>
> >> I've
Paul E. McKenney Thu Dec 01 2016 - 14:39:21 EST:
>> Well, I can confirm, that replacing cond_resched_rcu_qs in
>> shrink_node_memcg by cond_resched also makes dmesg clean from RCU
>> CPU stall warnings.
>>
>> I've attached patch (just modification of Paul's patch), that
>> fixes RCU stall
Paul E. McKenney Thu Dec 01 2016 - 14:39:21 EST:
>> Well, I can confirm, that replacing cond_resched_rcu_qs in
>> shrink_node_memcg by cond_resched also makes dmesg clean from RCU
>> CPU stall warnings.
>>
>> I've attached patch (just modification of Paul's patch), that
>> fixes RCU stall
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:37:35AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 01-12-16 21:10:01, Boris Zhmurov wrote:
> > Michal Hocko 30/11/16 21:25:
> >
> > >>> Do I get it right that s@cond_resched_rcu_qs@cond_resched@ didn't help?
> > >>
> > >> I didn't try that. I've tried 4 patches from Paul's
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:37:35AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 01-12-16 21:10:01, Boris Zhmurov wrote:
> > Michal Hocko 30/11/16 21:25:
> >
> > >>> Do I get it right that s@cond_resched_rcu_qs@cond_resched@ didn't help?
> > >>
> > >> I didn't try that. I've tried 4 patches from Paul's
On Thu 01-12-16 21:10:01, Boris Zhmurov wrote:
> Michal Hocko 30/11/16 21:25:
>
> >>> Do I get it right that s@cond_resched_rcu_qs@cond_resched@ didn't help?
> >>
> >> I didn't try that. I've tried 4 patches from Paul's linux-rcu tree.
> >> I can try another portion of patches, no problem :)
> >
On Thu 01-12-16 21:10:01, Boris Zhmurov wrote:
> Michal Hocko 30/11/16 21:25:
>
> >>> Do I get it right that s@cond_resched_rcu_qs@cond_resched@ didn't help?
> >>
> >> I didn't try that. I've tried 4 patches from Paul's linux-rcu tree.
> >> I can try another portion of patches, no problem :)
> >
On 11/30/16 12:43, Donald Buczek wrote:
On 11/30/16 12:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
[CCing Paul]
On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
[...]
shrink_active_list gets and releases the spinlock and calls
cond_resched().
This should give other tasks a chance to run. Just as an experiment,
On 11/30/16 12:43, Donald Buczek wrote:
On 11/30/16 12:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
[CCing Paul]
On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
[...]
shrink_active_list gets and releases the spinlock and calls
cond_resched().
This should give other tasks a chance to run. Just as an experiment,
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 09:10:01PM +0300, Boris Zhmurov wrote:
> Michal Hocko 30/11/16 21:25:
>
> >>> Do I get it right that s@cond_resched_rcu_qs@cond_resched@ didn't help?
> >>
> >> I didn't try that. I've tried 4 patches from Paul's linux-rcu tree.
> >> I can try another portion of patches, no
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 09:10:01PM +0300, Boris Zhmurov wrote:
> Michal Hocko 30/11/16 21:25:
>
> >>> Do I get it right that s@cond_resched_rcu_qs@cond_resched@ didn't help?
> >>
> >> I didn't try that. I've tried 4 patches from Paul's linux-rcu tree.
> >> I can try another portion of patches, no
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 10:42:52AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:09:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Thing is, I'm slightly uncomfortable with de-coupling rcu-sched from
> > actual schedule() calls.
>
> OK, what is the source of your discomfort?
Good question;
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 10:42:52AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:09:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Thing is, I'm slightly uncomfortable with de-coupling rcu-sched from
> > actual schedule() calls.
>
> OK, what is the source of your discomfort?
Good question;
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:09:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 08:59:18AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:36:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Well, with the above change cond_resched() is already sufficient, no?
> >
> > Maybe. Right
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:09:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 08:59:18AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:36:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Well, with the above change cond_resched() is already sufficient, no?
> >
> > Maybe. Right
Michal Hocko 30/11/16 21:25:
>>> Do I get it right that s@cond_resched_rcu_qs@cond_resched@ didn't help?
>>
>> I didn't try that. I've tried 4 patches from Paul's linux-rcu tree.
>> I can try another portion of patches, no problem :)
>
> Replacing cond_resched_rcu_qs in shrink_node_memcg by
Michal Hocko 30/11/16 21:25:
>>> Do I get it right that s@cond_resched_rcu_qs@cond_resched@ didn't help?
>>
>> I didn't try that. I've tried 4 patches from Paul's linux-rcu tree.
>> I can try another portion of patches, no problem :)
>
> Replacing cond_resched_rcu_qs in shrink_node_memcg by
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 08:59:18AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:36:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Well, with the above change cond_resched() is already sufficient, no?
>
> Maybe. Right now, cond_resched_rcu_qs() gets a quiescent state to
> the RCU core in
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 08:59:18AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:36:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Well, with the above change cond_resched() is already sufficient, no?
>
> Maybe. Right now, cond_resched_rcu_qs() gets a quiescent state to
> the RCU core in
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:36:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:40:24AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:30:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Sure, we all dislike IPIs, but I'm thinking this half-way point is
> > > sensible, no
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 05:36:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:40:24AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:30:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Sure, we all dislike IPIs, but I'm thinking this half-way point is
> > > sensible, no
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:40:24AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:30:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Sure, we all dislike IPIs, but I'm thinking this half-way point is
> > sensible, no point in issuing user visible annoyance if indeed we can
> > prod things back
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:40:24AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:30:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Sure, we all dislike IPIs, but I'm thinking this half-way point is
> > sensible, no point in issuing user visible annoyance if indeed we can
> > prod things back
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:30:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:40:19AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > See commit:
> > >
> > > 4a81e8328d37 ("rcu: Reduce overhead of cond_resched() checks for RCU")
> > >
> > > Someone actually wrote down what the problem
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:30:35AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:40:19AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > See commit:
> > >
> > > 4a81e8328d37 ("rcu: Reduce overhead of cond_resched() checks for RCU")
> > >
> > > Someone actually wrote down what the problem
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:40:19AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > See commit:
> >
> > 4a81e8328d37 ("rcu: Reduce overhead of cond_resched() checks for RCU")
> >
> > Someone actually wrote down what the problem was.
>
> Don't worry, it won't happen again. ;-)
>
> OK, so the regressions
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:40:19AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > See commit:
> >
> > 4a81e8328d37 ("rcu: Reduce overhead of cond_resched() checks for RCU")
> >
> > Someone actually wrote down what the problem was.
>
> Don't worry, it won't happen again. ;-)
>
> OK, so the regressions
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:50:16PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:05:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 30-11-16 17:38:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > We can, and you are correct that
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:50:16PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:05:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 30-11-16 17:38:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > We can, and you are correct that
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:05:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-11-16 17:38:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does not unconditionally
> > > supply RCU quiescent states,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:05:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-11-16 17:38:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does not unconditionally
> > > supply RCU quiescent states,
On Wed 30-11-16 09:23:55, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:05:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 30-11-16 17:38:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does
On Wed 30-11-16 09:23:55, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:05:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 30-11-16 17:38:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:05:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-11-16 17:38:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does not unconditionally
> > > supply RCU quiescent states,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:05:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-11-16 17:38:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does not unconditionally
> > > supply RCU quiescent states,
On Wed 30-11-16 17:38:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does not unconditionally
> > supply RCU quiescent states, and never has. Last time I tried to add
> > cond_resched_rcu_qs()
On Wed 30-11-16 17:38:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does not unconditionally
> > supply RCU quiescent states, and never has. Last time I tried to add
> > cond_resched_rcu_qs()
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:38:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does not unconditionally
> > supply RCU quiescent states, and never has. Last time I tried to add
> >
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:38:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does not unconditionally
> > supply RCU quiescent states, and never has. Last time I tried to add
> >
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does not unconditionally
> supply RCU quiescent states, and never has. Last time I tried to add
> cond_resched_rcu_qs() semantics to cond_resched(), I got told "no",
> but perhaps
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:29:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> We can, and you are correct that cond_resched() does not unconditionally
> supply RCU quiescent states, and never has. Last time I tried to add
> cond_resched_rcu_qs() semantics to cond_resched(), I got told "no",
> but perhaps
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 01:31:37PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> On 11/30/16 12:54, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:53:20AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:09:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> [CCing Paul]
> >>>
> >>> On Wed 30-11-16
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 01:31:37PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> On 11/30/16 12:54, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:53:20AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:09:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> [CCing Paul]
> >>>
> >>> On Wed 30-11-16
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:19:10PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-11-16 03:53:20, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:09:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > [CCing Paul]
> > >
> > > On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > shrink_active_list
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:19:10PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 30-11-16 03:53:20, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:09:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > [CCing Paul]
> > >
> > > On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > shrink_active_list
On Wed 30-11-16 03:53:20, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:09:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [CCing Paul]
> >
> > On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > [...]
> > > shrink_active_list gets and releases the spinlock and calls
> > > cond_resched().
> > > This
On Wed 30-11-16 03:53:20, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:09:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [CCing Paul]
> >
> > On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > [...]
> > > shrink_active_list gets and releases the spinlock and calls
> > > cond_resched().
> > > This
On 11/30/16 12:54, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:53:20AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:09:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> [CCing Paul]
>>>
>>> On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
>>> [...]
shrink_active_list gets and
On 11/30/16 12:54, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:53:20AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:09:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> [CCing Paul]
>>>
>>> On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
>>> [...]
shrink_active_list gets and
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:53:20AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:09:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [CCing Paul]
> >
> > On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > [...]
> > > shrink_active_list gets and releases the spinlock and calls
> > >
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:53:20AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:09:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [CCing Paul]
> >
> > On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > [...]
> > > shrink_active_list gets and releases the spinlock and calls
> > >
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:09:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CCing Paul]
>
> On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
> [...]
> > shrink_active_list gets and releases the spinlock and calls cond_resched().
> > This should give other tasks a chance to run. Just as an experiment, I'm
> >
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:09:44PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CCing Paul]
>
> On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
> [...]
> > shrink_active_list gets and releases the spinlock and calls cond_resched().
> > This should give other tasks a chance to run. Just as an experiment, I'm
> >
On 11/30/16 12:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
[CCing Paul]
On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
[...]
shrink_active_list gets and releases the spinlock and calls cond_resched().
This should give other tasks a chance to run. Just as an experiment, I'm
trying
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++
On 11/30/16 12:09, Michal Hocko wrote:
[CCing Paul]
On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
[...]
shrink_active_list gets and releases the spinlock and calls cond_resched().
This should give other tasks a chance to run. Just as an experiment, I'm
trying
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++
[CCing Paul]
On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
[...]
> shrink_active_list gets and releases the spinlock and calls cond_resched().
> This should give other tasks a chance to run. Just as an experiment, I'm
> trying
>
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1921,7 +1921,7 @@
[CCing Paul]
On Wed 30-11-16 11:28:34, Donald Buczek wrote:
[...]
> shrink_active_list gets and releases the spinlock and calls cond_resched().
> This should give other tasks a chance to run. Just as an experiment, I'm
> trying
>
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1921,7 +1921,7 @@
On 11/28/16 13:26, Paul Menzel wrote:
[...]
On 11/28/16 12:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
OK, so one of the stall is reported at
[118077.988410] INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
[118077.988416] 1-...: (181 ticks this GP)
idle=6d5/140/0 softirq=46417663/46417663
On 11/28/16 13:26, Paul Menzel wrote:
[...]
On 11/28/16 12:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
OK, so one of the stall is reported at
[118077.988410] INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
[118077.988416] 1-...: (181 ticks this GP)
idle=6d5/140/0 softirq=46417663/46417663
+linux...@kvack.org
-linux-...@vger.kernel.org
Dear Michal,
Thank you for your reply, and for looking at the log files.
On 11/28/16 12:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Sun 27-11-16 10:19:06, Donald Buczek wrote:
On 24.11.2016 11:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 21-11-16 16:35:53, Donald Buczek
+linux...@kvack.org
-linux-...@vger.kernel.org
Dear Michal,
Thank you for your reply, and for looking at the log files.
On 11/28/16 12:04, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Sun 27-11-16 10:19:06, Donald Buczek wrote:
On 24.11.2016 11:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 21-11-16 16:35:53, Donald Buczek
On Sun 27-11-16 10:19:06, Donald Buczek wrote:
> On 24.11.2016 11:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 21-11-16 16:35:53, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > thanks a lot for looking into this!
> > >
> > > Let me add some information from the reporting site:
> > >
> > > *
On Sun 27-11-16 10:19:06, Donald Buczek wrote:
> On 24.11.2016 11:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 21-11-16 16:35:53, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > thanks a lot for looking into this!
> > >
> > > Let me add some information from the reporting site:
> > >
> > > *
Am Donnerstag, den 24.11.2016, 19:50 +0100 schrieb Donald Buczek:
> On 24.11.2016 11:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Mon 21-11-16 16:35:53, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Let me add some information from the reporting site:
> >>
> >> * We've tried the patch from Paul E. McKenney (the one
Am Donnerstag, den 24.11.2016, 19:50 +0100 schrieb Donald Buczek:
> On 24.11.2016 11:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Mon 21-11-16 16:35:53, Donald Buczek wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Let me add some information from the reporting site:
> >>
> >> * We've tried the patch from Paul E. McKenney (the one
On 24.11.2016 11:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 21-11-16 16:35:53, Donald Buczek wrote:
[...]
Hello,
thanks a lot for looking into this!
Let me add some information from the reporting site:
* We've tried the patch from Paul E. McKenney (the one posted Wed, 16 Nov
2016) and it doesn't shut
On 24.11.2016 11:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 21-11-16 16:35:53, Donald Buczek wrote:
[...]
Hello,
thanks a lot for looking into this!
Let me add some information from the reporting site:
* We've tried the patch from Paul E. McKenney (the one posted Wed, 16 Nov
2016) and it doesn't shut
> On Nov 24, 2016, at 5:15 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
>> * No rcu_* warnings on that machine with 4.7.2, but with 4.8.4 , 4.8.6 ,
>> 4.8.8 and now 4.9.0-rc5+Pauls patch
>
> I assume you haven't tried the Linus 4.8 kernel without any further
> stable patches? Just to be sure
> On Nov 24, 2016, at 5:15 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
>> * No rcu_* warnings on that machine with 4.7.2, but with 4.8.4 , 4.8.6 ,
>> 4.8.8 and now 4.9.0-rc5+Pauls patch
>
> I assume you haven't tried the Linus 4.8 kernel without any further
> stable patches? Just to be sure we are not talking
On 24.11.2016 11:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 21-11-16 16:35:53, Donald Buczek wrote:
[...]
Hello,
thanks a lot for looking into this!
Let me add some information from the reporting site:
* We've tried the patch from Paul E. McKenney (the one posted Wed, 16 Nov
2016) and it doesn't shut
On 24.11.2016 11:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 21-11-16 16:35:53, Donald Buczek wrote:
[...]
Hello,
thanks a lot for looking into this!
Let me add some information from the reporting site:
* We've tried the patch from Paul E. McKenney (the one posted Wed, 16 Nov
2016) and it doesn't shut
On Mon 21-11-16 16:35:53, Donald Buczek wrote:
[...]
> Hello,
>
> thanks a lot for looking into this!
>
> Let me add some information from the reporting site:
>
> * We've tried the patch from Paul E. McKenney (the one posted Wed, 16 Nov
> 2016) and it doesn't shut up the rcu stall warnings.
>
On Mon 21-11-16 16:35:53, Donald Buczek wrote:
[...]
> Hello,
>
> thanks a lot for looking into this!
>
> Let me add some information from the reporting site:
>
> * We've tried the patch from Paul E. McKenney (the one posted Wed, 16 Nov
> 2016) and it doesn't shut up the rcu stall warnings.
>
On 11/21/16 15:29, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 03:18:19PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 21-11-16 06:01:22, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
To the patch. I cannot say I would like it. cond_resched_rcu_qs
On 11/21/16 15:29, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 03:18:19PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 21-11-16 06:01:22, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
To the patch. I cannot say I would like it. cond_resched_rcu_qs
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 03:18:19PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 21-11-16 06:01:22, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > To the patch. I cannot say I would like it. cond_resched_rcu_qs sounds
> > > way too lowlevel for this
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 03:18:19PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 21-11-16 06:01:22, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > To the patch. I cannot say I would like it. cond_resched_rcu_qs sounds
> > > way too lowlevel for this
On Mon 21-11-16 06:01:22, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > To the patch. I cannot say I would like it. cond_resched_rcu_qs sounds
> > way too lowlevel for this usage. If anything cond_resched somewhere inside
> > mem_cgroup_iter
On Mon 21-11-16 06:01:22, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > To the patch. I cannot say I would like it. cond_resched_rcu_qs sounds
> > way too lowlevel for this usage. If anything cond_resched somewhere inside
> > mem_cgroup_iter
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 16-11-16 09:30:36, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:01:19PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > > Dear Linux folks,
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/08/16 19:39, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:41:31PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 16-11-16 09:30:36, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:01:19PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > > Dear Linux folks,
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/08/16 19:39, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at
On Wed 16-11-16 09:30:36, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:01:19PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > Dear Linux folks,
> >
> >
> > On 11/08/16 19:39, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 06:38:18PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > >>On 11/08/16 18:03, Paul E.
On Wed 16-11-16 09:30:36, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:01:19PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > Dear Linux folks,
> >
> >
> > On 11/08/16 19:39, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 06:38:18PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > >>On 11/08/16 18:03, Paul E.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:01:19PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Dear Linux folks,
>
>
> On 11/08/16 19:39, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 06:38:18PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> >>On 11/08/16 18:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 01:22:28PM +0100, Paul
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 06:01:19PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> Dear Linux folks,
>
>
> On 11/08/16 19:39, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 06:38:18PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> >>On 11/08/16 18:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 01:22:28PM +0100, Paul
92 matches
Mail list logo