On 18 February 2013 20:53, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 17:50 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
>> yes for sure.
>> The problem is more linked to cpuidle and function tracer.
>>
>> cpu hotplug and function tracer work when cpuidle is disable.
>> cpu hotplug and cpuidle works if i
On 18 February 2013 20:53, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 17:50 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
yes for sure.
The problem is more linked to cpuidle and function tracer.
cpu hotplug and function tracer work when cpuidle is disable.
cpu hotplug and cpuidle works
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 17:50 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> yes for sure.
> The problem is more linked to cpuidle and function tracer.
>
> cpu hotplug and function tracer work when cpuidle is disable.
> cpu hotplug and cpuidle works if i don't enable function tracer.
> my platform is dead as
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 17:50 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> yes for sure.
> The problem is more linked to cpuidle and function tracer.
>
> cpu hotplug and function tracer work when cpuidle is disable.
> cpu hotplug and cpuidle works if i don't enable function tracer.
> my platform is dead as
On 18 February 2013 16:30, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 11:58 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
>> My tests have been done without cpuidle because i have some issues
>> with function tracer and cpuidle
>>
>> But the cpu hotplug and cpuidle work well when I run the tests without
>>
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 11:58 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> My tests have been done without cpuidle because i have some issues
> with function tracer and cpuidle
>
> But the cpu hotplug and cpuidle work well when I run the tests without
> enabling the function tracer
>
I know suspend and
On 02/18/2013 04:24 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> Lockup observed while running this patchset, with CPU_IDLE and INTEL_IDLE
>> turned
>> on in the .config:
>>
>> smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
>> Kernel panic - not syncing: Watchdog detected hard
On 18 February 2013 11:51, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> On 02/18/2013 04:04 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 02/18/2013 03:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 15 February 2013 20:40, Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>> wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On 02/15/2013 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Lockup observed while running this patchset, with CPU_IDLE and INTEL_IDLE
> turned
> on in the .config:
>
> smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
> Kernel panic - not syncing: Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 11
> Pid: 0, comm: swapper/11 Not tainted
On 02/18/2013 04:04 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/18/2013 03:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 15 February 2013 20:40, Srivatsa S. Bhat
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Vincent,
>>>
>>> On 02/15/2013 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Srivatsa,
I have run some tests with you branch
On 02/18/2013 03:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 15 February 2013 20:40, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> wrote:
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> On 02/15/2013 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Hi Srivatsa,
>>>
>>> I have run some tests with you branch (thanks Paul for the git tree)
>>> and you will find results
On 15 February 2013 20:40, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 02/15/2013 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Hi Srivatsa,
>>
>> I have run some tests with you branch (thanks Paul for the git tree)
>> and you will find results below.
>>
>
> Thank you very much for testing this patchset!
On 15 February 2013 20:40, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On 02/15/2013 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Srivatsa,
I have run some tests with you branch (thanks Paul for the git tree)
and you will find results below.
Thank you very much for
On 02/18/2013 03:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 15 February 2013 20:40, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On 02/15/2013 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Srivatsa,
I have run some tests with you branch (thanks Paul for the git tree)
and you will find
On 02/18/2013 04:04 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 02/18/2013 03:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 15 February 2013 20:40, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On 02/15/2013 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Srivatsa,
I have run some tests with you branch
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Lockup observed while running this patchset, with CPU_IDLE and INTEL_IDLE
turned
on in the .config:
smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
Kernel panic - not syncing: Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 11
Pid: 0, comm: swapper/11 Not tainted
On 18 February 2013 11:51, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 02/18/2013 04:04 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 02/18/2013 03:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 15 February 2013 20:40, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On 02/15/2013
On 02/18/2013 04:24 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Lockup observed while running this patchset, with CPU_IDLE and INTEL_IDLE
turned
on in the .config:
smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
Kernel panic - not syncing: Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 11
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 11:58 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
My tests have been done without cpuidle because i have some issues
with function tracer and cpuidle
But the cpu hotplug and cpuidle work well when I run the tests without
enabling the function tracer
I know suspend and resume has
On 18 February 2013 16:30, Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 11:58 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
My tests have been done without cpuidle because i have some issues
with function tracer and cpuidle
But the cpu hotplug and cpuidle work well when I run the tests
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 17:50 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
yes for sure.
The problem is more linked to cpuidle and function tracer.
cpu hotplug and function tracer work when cpuidle is disable.
cpu hotplug and cpuidle works if i don't enable function tracer.
my platform is dead as soon as I
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 17:50 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
yes for sure.
The problem is more linked to cpuidle and function tracer.
cpu hotplug and function tracer work when cpuidle is disable.
cpu hotplug and cpuidle works if i don't enable function tracer.
my platform is dead as soon as I
Hi Vincent,
On 02/15/2013 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Srivatsa,
>
> I have run some tests with you branch (thanks Paul for the git tree)
> and you will find results below.
>
Thank you very much for testing this patchset!
> The tests condition are:
> - 5 CPUs system in 2 clusters
> -
Hi Vincent,
On 02/15/2013 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Srivatsa,
I have run some tests with you branch (thanks Paul for the git tree)
and you will find results below.
Thank you very much for testing this patchset!
The tests condition are:
- 5 CPUs system in 2 clusters
- The
On 02/12/2013 12:38 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:53:41PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 02/11/2013 05:28 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 8 February 2013 19:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>> wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
Adding Vincent to CC, who had previously evaluated
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:53:41PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/11/2013 05:28 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 8 February 2013 19:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> > wrote:
[ . . . ]
> >> Adding Vincent to CC, who had previously evaluated the performance and
> >> latency implications of CPU
On 02/11/2013 05:28 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8 February 2013 19:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> wrote:
>> On 02/08/2013 10:14 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>> On 02/08/2013 09:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On
Hi Srivatsa,
I can try to run some of our stress tests on your patches. Have you
got a git tree that i can pull ?
Regards,
Vincent
On 8 February 2013 19:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 10:14 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 02/08/2013 09:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>
Hi Srivatsa,
I can try to run some of our stress tests on your patches. Have you
got a git tree that i can pull ?
Regards,
Vincent
On 8 February 2013 19:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 02/08/2013 10:14 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 02/08/2013 09:11 PM, Russell
On 02/11/2013 05:28 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 8 February 2013 19:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 02/08/2013 10:14 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 02/08/2013 09:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:53:41PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 02/11/2013 05:28 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 8 February 2013 19:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
[ . . . ]
Adding Vincent to CC, who had previously evaluated the performance and
latency
On 02/12/2013 12:38 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:53:41PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 02/11/2013 05:28 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 8 February 2013 19:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat
srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
[ . . . ]
Adding Vincent to CC, who had
On 02/08/2013 10:14 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 09:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>> On 02/07/2013 09:44 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" writes:
> On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S.
On 02/08/2013 09:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 02/07/2013 09:44 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> "Srivatsa S. Bhat" writes:
On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Avg. latency of 1
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/07/2013 09:44 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > "Srivatsa S. Bhat" writes:
> >> On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> Avg. latency of 1 CPU offline (ms) [stop-cpu/stop-m/c
> >> latency]
> >>
> >>
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 02/07/2013 09:44 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Srivatsa S. Bhat srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com writes:
On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Avg. latency of 1 CPU offline (ms) [stop-cpu/stop-m/c
On 02/08/2013 09:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 02/07/2013 09:44 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Srivatsa S. Bhat srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com writes:
On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 02/08/2013 10:14 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 02/08/2013 09:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 02/07/2013 09:44 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Srivatsa S. Bhat srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com writes:
On 01/22/2013 01:03
On 02/07/2013 09:44 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Srivatsa S. Bhat" writes:
>> On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> Avg. latency of 1 CPU offline (ms) [stop-cpu/stop-m/c
>> latency]
>>
>> # online CPUsMainline (with stop-m/c) This patchset (no stop-m/c)
>>
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" writes:
> On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Avg. latency of 1 CPU offline (ms) [stop-cpu/stop-m/c
> latency]
>
> # online CPUsMainline (with stop-m/c) This patchset (no stop-m/c)
>
> 8 17.04
Srivatsa S. Bhat srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com writes:
On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Avg. latency of 1 CPU offline (ms) [stop-cpu/stop-m/c
latency]
# online CPUsMainline (with stop-m/c) This patchset (no stop-m/c)
8
On 02/07/2013 09:44 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
Srivatsa S. Bhat srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com writes:
On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Avg. latency of 1 CPU offline (ms) [stop-cpu/stop-m/c
latency]
# online CPUsMainline (with stop-m/c) This
Hi,
This patchset removes CPU hotplug's dependence on stop_machine() from the CPU
offline path and provides an alternative (set of APIs) to preempt_disable() to
prevent CPUs from going offline, which can be invoked from atomic context.
The motivation behind the removal of stop_machine() is to
Hi,
This patchset removes CPU hotplug's dependence on stop_machine() from the CPU
offline path and provides an alternative (set of APIs) to preempt_disable() to
prevent CPUs from going offline, which can be invoked from atomic context.
The motivation behind the removal of stop_machine() is to
44 matches
Mail list logo
