On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:19:42AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > static void ttwu_queue_remote(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
> > {
> > - if (llist_add(&p->wake_entry, &cpu_rq(cpu)->wake_list))
> > - smp_send_reschedule(cpu);
> > + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > +
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:49:07AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Exactly. AFAICT the only reason that any of this code holds rq->lock
>> (especially ttwu_queue_remote, which I se
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:46:39PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Ok but if the target is idle, dynticks and not polling, we don't have the
> choice
> but to send an IPI, right? I'm talking about this kind of case.
Yes; but Andy doesn't seem concerned with such hardware (!x86).
Anything x86
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 05:43:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:59:52PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > 2014-02-12 11:13 GMT+01:00 Peter Zijlstra :
> > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thoma
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:59:52PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2014-02-12 11:13 GMT+01:00 Peter Zijlstra :
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner
> >> wrote:
> >> >> A small number of reschedule interrupts
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:49:07AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner
> >> wrote:
> >> >> A small number of reschedule in
2014-02-12 11:13 GMT+01:00 Peter Zijlstra :
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> >> A small number of reschedule interrupts appear to be due to a race:
>> >> both resched_task and wake_up_idle_cpu do, essen
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> >> A small number of reschedule interrupts appear to be due to a race:
>> >> both resched_task and wake_up_idle_c
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:34:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> A small number of reschedule interrupts appear to be due to a race:
> >> both resched_task and wake_up_idle_cpu do, essentially:
> >>
> >> set_tsk_need_resched(t);
> >> s
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Just adding Peter for now, as I'm too tired to grok the issue right
> now.
>
>> Rumor has it that Linux 3.13 was supposed to get rid of all the silly
>> rescheduling interrupts. It doesn't, a
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
Just adding Peter for now, as I'm too tired to grok the issue right
now.
> Rumor has it that Linux 3.13 was supposed to get rid of all the silly
> rescheduling interrupts. It doesn't, although it does seem to have
> improved the situation.
>
> A small
11 matches
Mail list logo
