On 09/23/16 00:34, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Is anybody still using PREEMPT_NONE? Most workloads also care about
latency to some extend. Lots of code has explicit cond_resched() and
doesn't worry.
From a SLES11 system:
$ grep PREEMPT_NONE /boot/config-3.0.101-0.47.67-default
CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 08:42:51AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23 2016 at 8:26am -0400,
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:17:10PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 10:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zi
On Fri, Sep 23 2016 at 8:26am -0400,
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:17:10PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 10:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > > Is anybody still using PREEMPT_NONE? Most workl
On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 14:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:17:10PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 10:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > > Is anybody still using PREEMPT_NONE? Most workloads
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:17:10PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 10:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Is anybody still using PREEMPT_NONE? Most workloads also care about
> > > latency to some extend. Lots of code has expl
On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 10:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Is anybody still using PREEMPT_NONE? Most workloads also care about
> > latency to some extend. Lots of code has explicit cond_resched() and
> > doesn't worry.
>
> Dunno. But I bet there are
* Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:00:37AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > It is, might_sleep() implies might_resched(). In fact, that's all what
> > > > PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is,
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:00:37AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > It is, might_sleep() implies might_resched(). In fact, that's all what
> > > PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is, make the might_sleep() debug test imp
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:00:37AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > It is, might_sleep() implies might_resched(). In fact, that's all what
> > PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is, make the might_sleep() debug test imply a resched
> > point.
>
> Grr, how intuitive - N
On Fri, 23 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:59:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:39:59AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > > So I'
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:59:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:39:59AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > So I'm not sure how this dm-bufio local cond_resched() wrapp
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:39:59AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > So I'm not sure how this dm-bufio local cond_resched() wrapper still got
> > > in... happy to take your patch.
> > >
> > > Please resp
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:39:59AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > So I'm not sure how this dm-bufio local cond_resched() wrapper still got
> > in... happy to take your patch.
> >
> > Please respond with whatever SOB you'd like applied to the patch he
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:39:59AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> So I'm not sure how this dm-bufio local cond_resched() wrapper still got
> in... happy to take your patch.
>
> Please respond with whatever SOB you'd like applied to the patch header.
Sorry, for the delay, here goes.
---
Subject: dm
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 05:49:07AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > While grepping for PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY I ran into dm_bufio_cond_resched()
> > and wondered WTH it was about.
>
> cond_resched() calls _cond_resched() even if wh
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While grepping for PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY I ran into dm_bufio_cond_resched()
> and wondered WTH it was about.
cond_resched() calls _cond_resched() even if when we have a preemptive
kernel - with preemptive kernel, calling cond_resched is poi
On Tue, Sep 13 2016 at 4:45am -0400,
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While grepping for PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY I ran into dm_bufio_cond_resched()
> and wondered WTH it was about.
>
> Is there anything wrong with the below patch?
No, I'll pick it up for 4.9 merge. Mikulas added it for sparc or
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While grepping for PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY I ran into dm_bufio_cond_resched()
> and wondered WTH it was about.
>
> Is there anything wrong with the below patch?
Not at all, except that you forgot to add your SOB to it :)
Acked-by: Thomas Gleix
Hi all,
While grepping for PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY I ran into dm_bufio_cond_resched()
and wondered WTH it was about.
Is there anything wrong with the below patch?
---
diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c b/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c
index 8625040bae92..125aedc3875f 100644
--- a/drivers/md/dm-bufio.c
+++ b/dr
19 matches
Mail list logo
