[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140312155754.GG27965@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:57:54 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>, arnd@...db.de,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
walken@...gle.com, andi@...stfloor.org, riel@...hat.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
oleg@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] locking: qspinlock
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 06:07:30AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:26:16 +1100
> Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I did apply them manually - but the patchset is based on the
> > tip/master, plus some patches from a previous patch set that aren't
> > in tip/locking to be able to apply this patchset cleanly in the
> > first place. So there's no "start froma known working kernel" case
> > that applies here :/
>
> Peter,
>
> Which kernel should we start testing your code against?
I build and booted these patches against tip/master as of this morning.
It build ~50 defconfig kernels on my WSM-EP.
I've not managed to reproduce the hang as reported by Dave, but then I
doubt building kernels has anywhere near the lock contention he
generated.
I did run my userspace on both the WSM-EP as well as the Interlagos box,
topping out at 24 and 32 contending cpus resp.
No weird lockups :/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists