On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 19:06 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 15:53 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2017-02-16 15:42:59 [+0100], Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > Weeell, I'm trying to cobble something kinda like that together using
> > > __RT_SPIN_INITIALIZER() i
BTW, this ain't gone. I'll take a peek. It doesn't happen in my tree,
seems likely to be because whether running sirqs fully threaded or not,
I don't let one any thread handle what another exists to handle.
[ 638.107293] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 80
[ 939.729684] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending
On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 15:53 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-02-16 15:42:59 [+0100], Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > Weeell, I'm trying to cobble something kinda like that together using
> > __RT_SPIN_INITIALIZER() instead, but seems mean ole Mr. Compiler NAKs
> > the PER_CPU_DEP_MA
On 2017-02-16 15:42:59 [+0100], Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> Weeell, I'm trying to cobble something kinda like that together using
> __RT_SPIN_INITIALIZER() instead, but seems mean ole Mr. Compiler NAKs
> the PER_CPU_DEP_MAP_INIT() thingy.
>
> CC mm/swap.o
> mm/swap.c:54:689: error: braced-gr
On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 12:06 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:01:18AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 09:37 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > >
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:01:18AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 09:37 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > ...
> > > > swapvec_lock? Oodles of 'em? Nope.
> > >
> > > We
On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 10:01 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 09:37 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > ...
> > > > swapvec_lock? Oodles of 'em? Nope.
> > >
> > > Well, it'
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 09:37 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> ...
> > > swapvec_lock? Oodles of 'em? Nope.
> >
> > Well, it's a per cpu lock and the lru_cache_add() variants might be called
> > from a
On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 09:37 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
...
> > swapvec_lock? Oodles of 'em? Nope.
>
> Well, it's a per cpu lock and the lru_cache_add() variants might be called
> from a gazillion of different call chains, but yes, it does not ma
On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 4.9.10-rt6-virgin on 72 core +SMT box.
>
> Below is 1 line per minute, box idling along daintily nibbling, I fire
> up a parallel kbuild loop at 40465, and box gobbles greedily.
>
> I have entries bumped to 128k, and chain bits to 18 so box will get
>
10 matches
Mail list logo