On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:37:17 -0400 Chris Metcalf wrote:
> Change the default behavior of watchdog so it only runs on the
> housekeeping cores when nohz_full is enabled at build and boot time.
> Allow modifying the set of cores the watchdog is currently running
> on with a new kernel.watchdog_cpum
On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:37:17 -0400 Chris Metcalf wrote:
> Change the default behavior of watchdog so it only runs on the
> housekeeping cores when nohz_full is enabled at build and boot time.
> Allow modifying the set of cores the watchdog is currently running
> on with a new kernel.watchdog_cpum
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:07:59PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 04/21/2015 08:32 AM, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
> >Chris,
> >
> >in v9, smpboot_update_cpumask_percpu_thread() allocates 'tmp' mask
> >dynamically.
> >This allocation can fail and thus the function can now return an error.
> >Howeve
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Metcalf"
[...]
On 04/21/2015 08:32 AM, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> in v9, smpboot_update_cpumask_percpu_thread() allocates 'tmp' mask
>> dynamically.
>> This allocation can fail and thus the function can now return an error.
>> However,
>> th
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:17:59 -0400 Don Zickus wrote:
> cc'ing Andrew
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:27:16PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > I've been out on vacation the last ten days, but picking this up
> > again now.
> >
> > I'll wait a bit before putting out a v10, and also address Uli's ad
On 04/21/2015 08:32 AM, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
Chris,
in v9, smpboot_update_cpumask_percpu_thread() allocates 'tmp' mask dynamically.
This allocation can fail and thus the function can now return an error. However,
this error is being ignored by proc_watchdog_cpumask().
Yes, I did that intent
cc'ing Andrew
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:27:16PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> I've been out on vacation the last ten days, but picking this up
> again now.
>
> I'll wait a bit before putting out a v10, and also address Uli's additional
> emails. Meanwhile, who is the right person to eventually
I've been out on vacation the last ten days, but picking this up
again now.
I'll wait a bit before putting out a v10, and also address Uli's additional
emails. Meanwhile, who is the right person to eventually pick up this patchset
and push it up to Linus? Frederic, Don, Thomas, akpm? v9 is her
- Original Message -
From: "Don Zickus"
[...]
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:07:00AM -0400, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
>>
>> Chris,
>>
[...]
>> I think the user should only be allowed to specify a mask that is a subset of
>> tick_nohz_full_mask as only those CPUs don't have a watchdog thread by
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 07:02:31AM -0400, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> in https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/17/616 you stated:
>
> ">> +alloc_cpumask_var(&watchdog_cpumask_for_smpboot, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > alloc_cpumask_var could fail?
>
> Good catch; if I get a failure I'll
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:07:00AM -0400, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> I think it would also be nice to check the plausibility of the user input.
>
> +int proc_watchdog_cpumask(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *p
Chris,
in https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/17/616 you stated:
">> + alloc_cpumask_var(&watchdog_cpumask_for_smpboot, GFP_KERNEL);
>
> alloc_cpumask_var could fail?
Good catch; if I get a failure I'll just return early without trying to
start the watchdog, since clearly things are too memo
Chris,
I think it would also be nice to check the plausibility of the user input.
+int proc_watchdog_cpumask(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
+ void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
+{
+int err;
+
+mutex_lock(&watchdog_proc_mutex);
+
Chris,
in v9, smpboot_update_cpumask_percpu_thread() allocates 'tmp' mask dynamically.
This allocation can fail and thus the function can now return an error. However,
this error is being ignored by proc_watchdog_cpumask().
+int proc_watchdog_cpumask(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
+
14 matches
Mail list logo
