On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 14:59 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:50:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > So you already have an idle notifier (which is x86 only, we should fix
>
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 21:03 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 08:06:55PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 16:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:45:25PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 3.0.101-default3.7
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 08:06:55PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 16:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:45:25PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > 3.0.101-default3.753363 usecs/loop -- avg 3.770737 530.4 KHz
> > > 1.000
> > > 3.14
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 14:59 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:50:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > So you already have an idle notifier (which is x86 only, we should fix
> > > that I suppose), and you then double check
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 14:07 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:50:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So you already have an idle notifier (which is x86 only, we should fix
> > that I suppose), and you then double check there really isn't anything
> > else running.
>
> Not
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 11:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:50:50PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
>
> > There is a generic multi-buffer infrastructure portion that manages
> > pulling and queuing jobs on the crypto workqueue, and it is separated out
> > in patch 1 of the patchse
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 16:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:45:25PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > 3.0.101-default3.753363 usecs/loop -- avg 3.770737 530.4 KHz 1.000
> > 3.14.10-default4.145348 usecs/loop -- avg 4.139987 483.1 KHz
> > .910
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:21:49AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:36:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So, just to expand on this, we're already getting 'bug' reports because
> > worker threads are not cgroup aware. If work gets generated inside some
> > cgroup, the worker
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:36:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So, just to expand on this, we're already getting 'bug' reports because
> worker threads are not cgroup aware. If work gets generated inside some
> cgroup, the worker doesn't care and runs the worker thread wherever
> (typically the
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:45:25PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> 3.0.101-default3.753363 usecs/loop -- avg 3.770737 530.4 KHz 1.000
> 3.14.10-default4.145348 usecs/loop -- avg 4.139987 483.1 KHz.910
>1.000
> 3.15.4-default 4.355594 usecs/loop -- avg 4.351961
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 14:59 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:50:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > So you already have an idle notifier (which is x86 only, we should fix
> > > that I suppose), and you then double check
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:15:04PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I still loathe all the async work, because it makes a mockery of
> accounting etc.. but that's a story for another day I suppose :-(
So, just to expand on this, we're already getting 'bug' reports because
worker threads are not cgro
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:50:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So you already have an idle notifier (which is x86 only, we should fix
> > that I suppose), and you then double check there really isn't anything
> > else running.
>
> Note that we've
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:50:45AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So you already have an idle notifier (which is x86 only, we should fix
> that I suppose), and you then double check there really isn't anything
> else running.
Note that we've already done a large part of the expense of going idle
b
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:50:50PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> There is a generic multi-buffer infrastructure portion that manages
> pulling and queuing jobs on the crypto workqueue, and it is separated out
> in patch 1 of the patchset.
There's one very weird multi-line comment in that patch.
> The
15 matches
Mail list logo
