[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <63454831-3259-c758-d164-3b2ff2a04b7e@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 09:44:06 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk
On 08/24/2017 01:44 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:16:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> These changes look fine. We are testing them now.
>>> Does the second patch in the series look okay to you?
>>
>> I didn't really have any reaction to that one, as long as Mel&co are
>> ok with it, I'm fine with it.
>>
>
> I've no strong objections or concerns. I'm disappointed that the
> original root cause for this could not be found but hope that eventually a
> reproducible test case will eventually be available. Despite having access
> to a 4-socket box, I was still unable to create a workload that caused
> large delays on wakeup. I'm going to have to stop as I don't think it's
> possible to create on that particular machine for whatever reason.
>
Kan helped to test the updated patch 1 from Linus. It worked fine.
I've refreshed the patch set that includes all the changes
and send a version 2 refresh of the patch set separately.
Thanks.
Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists