On 18 February 2013 20:53, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 17:50 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
>> yes for sure.
>> The problem is more linked to cpuidle and function tracer.
>>
>> cpu hotplug and function tracer work when cpuidle is disable.
>> cpu hotplug and cpuidle works if i do
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 17:50 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> yes for sure.
> The problem is more linked to cpuidle and function tracer.
>
> cpu hotplug and function tracer work when cpuidle is disable.
> cpu hotplug and cpuidle works if i don't enable function tracer.
> my platform is dead as soon
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 17:50 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> yes for sure.
> The problem is more linked to cpuidle and function tracer.
>
> cpu hotplug and function tracer work when cpuidle is disable.
> cpu hotplug and cpuidle works if i don't enable function tracer.
> my platform is dead as soon
On 18 February 2013 16:30, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 11:58 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
>> My tests have been done without cpuidle because i have some issues
>> with function tracer and cpuidle
>>
>> But the cpu hotplug and cpuidle work well when I run the tests without
>> e
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 11:58 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> My tests have been done without cpuidle because i have some issues
> with function tracer and cpuidle
>
> But the cpu hotplug and cpuidle work well when I run the tests without
> enabling the function tracer
>
I know suspend and resume
On 02/18/2013 04:24 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> Lockup observed while running this patchset, with CPU_IDLE and INTEL_IDLE
>> turned
>> on in the .config:
>>
>> smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
>> Kernel panic - not syncing: Watchdog detected hard LOCK
On 18 February 2013 11:51, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> On 02/18/2013 04:04 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 02/18/2013 03:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 15 February 2013 20:40, Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>> wrote:
Hi Vincent,
On 02/15/2013 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Sriv
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Lockup observed while running this patchset, with CPU_IDLE and INTEL_IDLE
> turned
> on in the .config:
>
> smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
> Kernel panic - not syncing: Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 11
> Pid: 0, comm: swapper/11 Not tainted 3.
On 02/18/2013 04:04 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/18/2013 03:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 15 February 2013 20:40, Srivatsa S. Bhat
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Vincent,
>>>
>>> On 02/15/2013 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Srivatsa,
I have run some tests with you branch (thanks
On 02/18/2013 03:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 15 February 2013 20:40, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> wrote:
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> On 02/15/2013 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> Hi Srivatsa,
>>>
>>> I have run some tests with you branch (thanks Paul for the git tree)
>>> and you will find results belo
On 15 February 2013 20:40, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 02/15/2013 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> Hi Srivatsa,
>>
>> I have run some tests with you branch (thanks Paul for the git tree)
>> and you will find results below.
>>
>
> Thank you very much for testing this patchset!
>
Hi Vincent,
On 02/15/2013 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Srivatsa,
>
> I have run some tests with you branch (thanks Paul for the git tree)
> and you will find results below.
>
Thank you very much for testing this patchset!
> The tests condition are:
> - 5 CPUs system in 2 clusters
> -
On 02/12/2013 12:38 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:53:41PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 02/11/2013 05:28 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 8 February 2013 19:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>> wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
Adding Vincent to CC, who had previously evaluated
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:53:41PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/11/2013 05:28 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 8 February 2013 19:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> > wrote:
[ . . . ]
> >> Adding Vincent to CC, who had previously evaluated the performance and
> >> latency implications of CPU hotp
Hi Srivatsa,
I can try to run some of our stress tests on your patches. Have you
got a git tree that i can pull ?
Regards,
Vincent
On 8 February 2013 19:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat
wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 10:14 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 02/08/2013 09:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> O
On 02/11/2013 05:28 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 8 February 2013 19:09, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> wrote:
>> On 02/08/2013 10:14 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>> On 02/08/2013 09:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/07/
On 02/08/2013 10:14 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 09:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>> On 02/07/2013 09:44 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" writes:
> On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S.
On 02/08/2013 09:11 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 02/07/2013 09:44 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> "Srivatsa S. Bhat" writes:
On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Avg. latency of 1 CP
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:41:34AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 02/07/2013 09:44 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > "Srivatsa S. Bhat" writes:
> >> On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> Avg. latency of 1 CPU offline (ms) [stop-cpu/stop-m/c
> >> latency]
> >>
> >>
On 02/07/2013 09:44 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Srivatsa S. Bhat" writes:
>> On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> Avg. latency of 1 CPU offline (ms) [stop-cpu/stop-m/c
>> latency]
>>
>> # online CPUsMainline (with stop-m/c) This patchset (no stop-m/c)
>>
>
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" writes:
> On 01/22/2013 01:03 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Avg. latency of 1 CPU offline (ms) [stop-cpu/stop-m/c
> latency]
>
> # online CPUsMainline (with stop-m/c) This patchset (no stop-m/c)
>
> 8 17.04
Hi,
This patchset removes CPU hotplug's dependence on stop_machine() from the CPU
offline path and provides an alternative (set of APIs) to preempt_disable() to
prevent CPUs from going offline, which can be invoked from atomic context.
The motivation behind the removal of stop_machine() is to avoi
22 matches
Mail list logo
