On 8/28/12, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> OK, but I thought that Peter said that ->nr_uninterruptible was
> meaningful only when summed across all CPUs. If that is the case,
> it shouldn't matter where the counts are moved.
>
Yes, right. But, nr_uninterruptible is also use to calculate delta.
Pleas
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:52:45PM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> On 8/28/12, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:57:09PM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> >> Hello Paul,
> >>
> >> On 8/28/12, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:26:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney
On 8/28/12, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:57:09PM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>> Hello Paul,
>>
>> On 8/28/12, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:26:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:26:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:57:09PM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> On 8/28/12, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:26:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:26:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > How about the following updated p
Hello Paul,
On 8/28/12, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:26:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:26:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> How about the following updated patch?
>
Actually, I was waiting for Peter's update.
>
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:26:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:26:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > OK, so how about something like the below, it would also solve Paul's
> > issue with that code.
> >
> >
> > Please do double check the logic, I've ha
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:26:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 19:39 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> > On 8/16/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 21:32 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> > >> And also I think migrate_nr_uninterruptible() is meaning less too.
>
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 22:10 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> >
> First of all, you've misspelled my name, it's Rakib not Rabik.
Damn, sorry!, lysdexic that..
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 4376c9f..06d23c6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/s
On 8/20/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 19:39 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>> On 8/16/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 21:32 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>> >> And also I think migrate_nr_uninterruptible() is meaning less too.
>> >
>> > Hmm, I think I see a pro
On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 19:39 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> On 8/16/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 21:32 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> >> And also I think migrate_nr_uninterruptible() is meaning less too.
> >
> > Hmm, I think I see a problem.. we forget to migrate the effective
On 8/16/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 21:32 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>> And also I think migrate_nr_uninterruptible() is meaning less too.
>
> Hmm, I think I see a problem.. we forget to migrate the effective delta
> created by rq->calc_load_active.
>
And rq->calc_load_activ
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 21:32 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> And also I think migrate_nr_uninterruptible() is meaning less too.
Hmm, I think I see a problem.. we forget to migrate the effective delta
created by rq->calc_load_active.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-k
On 8/16/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 20:28 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>
>> nr_uninterruptible is coupled with tasks on the runqueue to calculate
>> nr_active numbers.
>
> It is not.. nr_uninterruptible is incremented on the cpu the task goes
> to sleep and decremented on the
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 20:28 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> I'm not sure which parts are missing from Changelog to patch. And this
> patch assumes that, sleeping tasks won't be scattered. From
> select_fallback_rq(), sleeping tasks might get scattered due to
> various cases like. if CPU is down, tas
On 8/16/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 19:45 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>> When a CPU is about to go down, it moves all it's sleeping task to an
>> active CPU, then nr_uninterruptible counts are
>> also moved. When moving nr_uninterruptible count, currently it chooses a
>> rand
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 19:45 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> When a CPU is about to go down, it moves all it's sleeping task to an active
> CPU, then nr_uninterruptible counts are
> also moved. When moving nr_uninterruptible count, currently it chooses a
> randomly picked CPU from the active CPU mas
16 matches
Mail list logo
