On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:33:48PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 05:09:03PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2018-10-15 23:07:15 [+0800], Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > Hi, Sebastian
> > Hi Boqun,
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 04:42:17PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Sie
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 05:09:03PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-10-15 23:07:15 [+0800], Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Hi, Sebastian
> Hi Boqun,
>
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 04:42:17PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2018-10-13 06:48:13 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote
On 2018-10-15 23:07:15 [+0800], Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi, Sebastian
Hi Boqun,
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 04:42:17PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2018-10-13 06:48:13 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > My concern would be that it would queue it by default for the current
>
Hi, Sebastian
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 04:42:17PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-10-13 06:48:13 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > My concern would be that it would queue it by default for the current
> > CPU, which would serialize the processing, losing the concurrency of
On 2018-10-13 06:48:13 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> My concern would be that it would queue it by default for the current
> CPU, which would serialize the processing, losing the concurrency of
> grace-period initialization. But that was a long time ago, and perhaps
> workqueues have chang
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 08:41:15PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-09-19 15:11:40 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 01:55:21PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Unbound workqueue is NUMA-affine by default, so using it by default
> > > might not harm anything
On 2018-09-19 15:11:40 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 01:55:21PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Unbound workqueue is NUMA-affine by default, so using it by default
> > might not harm anything.
>
> OK, so the above workaround would function correctly on -rt, thank you!
>
>
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 01:55:21PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:02:22AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Doesn't work for me because it is still within the preempt-disable
> > > section :/.
> > > Would it work to use WORK_CPU_UNBOUND? As far as I understand i
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:02:22AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Doesn't work for me because it is still within the preempt-disable
> > section :/.
> > Would it work to use WORK_CPU_UNBOUND? As far as I understand it, the
> > CPU number does not matter, you just want to spread it acros
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 06:21:42PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2018-09-11 09:05:32 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 03:56:16PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > It was possible that sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus() enqueued something on
> > > CPU0
On 2018-09-11 09:05:32 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 03:56:16PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > It was possible that sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus() enqueued something on
> > CPU0 while CPU0 was offline. Such a work item wouldn't be processed
> > until CPU0 gets
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 03:56:16PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> It was possible that sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus() enqueued something on
> CPU0 while CPU0 was offline. Such a work item wouldn't be processed
> until CPU0 gets back online. This problem was addressed in commit
> fcc635436501
It was possible that sync_rcu_exp_select_cpus() enqueued something on
CPU0 while CPU0 was offline. Such a work item wouldn't be processed
until CPU0 gets back online. This problem was addressed in commit
fcc6354365015 ("rcu: Make expedited GPs handle CPU 0 being offline"). I
don't think the issue f
13 matches
Mail list logo
