From: Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Dario Faggioli" <dfaggioli@suse.com>,
"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
"Aaron Lu" <aaron.lu@linux.alibaba.com>,
"Aubrey Li" <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>,
"Subhra Mazumdar" <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>,
"Vineeth Remanan Pillai" <vpillai@digitalocean.com>,
"Nishanth Aravamudan" <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Paul Turner" <pjt@google.com>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Linux List Kernel Mailing" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Greg Kerr" <kerrnel@google.com>, "Phil Auld" <pauld@redhat.com>,
"Valentin Schneider" <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
"Mel Gorman" <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
"Pawan Gupta" <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 21:44:23 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190905014423.GA5234@sinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <69cd9bca-da28-1d35-3913-1efefe0c1c22@linux.intel.com>
> 1) Unfairness between the sibling threads
> -----------------------------------------
> One sibling thread could be suppressing and force idling
> the sibling thread over proportionally. Resulting in
> the force idled CPU not getting run and stall tasks on
> suppressed CPU.
>
> Status:
> i) Aaron has proposed a patchset here based on using one
> rq as a base reference for vruntime for task priority
> comparison between siblings.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190725143248.GC992@aaronlu/
> It works well on fairness but has some initialization issues
>
> ii) Tim has proposed a patchset here to account for forced
> idle time in rq's min_vruntime
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/f96350c1-25a9-0564-ff46-6658e96d726c@linux.intel.com/
> It improves over v3 with simpler logic compared to
> Aaron's patch, but does not work as well on fairness
>
> iii) Tim has proposed yet another patch to maintain fairness
> of forced idle time between CPU threads per Peter's suggestion.
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/21933a50-f796-3d28-664c-030cb7c98431@linux.intel.com/
> Its performance has yet to be tested.
>
> 2) Not rescheduling forced idled CPU
> ------------------------------------
> The forced idled CPU does not get a chance to re-schedule
> itself, and will stall for a long time even though it
> has eligible tasks to run.
>
> Status:
> i) Aaron proposed a patch to fix this to check if there
> are runnable tasks when scheduling tick comes in.
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190725143344.GD992@aaronlu/
>
> ii) Vineeth has patches to this issue and also issue 1, based
> on scheduling in a new "forced idle task" when getting forced
> idle, but has yet to post the patches.
We finished writing and debugging the PoC for the coresched_idle task
and here are the results and the code.
Those patches are applied on top of Aaron's patches:
- sched: Fix incorrect rq tagged as forced idle
- wrapper for cfs_rq->min_vruntime
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190725143127.GB992@aaronlu/
- core vruntime comparison
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190725143248.GC992@aaronlu/
For the testing, we used the same strategy as described in
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190802153715.GA18075@sinkpad/
No tag
------
Test Average Stdev
Alone 1306.90 0.94
nosmt 649.95 1.44
Aaron's full patchset: 828.15 32.45
Aaron's first 2 patches: 832.12 36.53
Tim's first patchset: 852.50 4.11
Tim's second patchset: 855.11 9.89
coresched_idle 985.67 0.83
Sysbench mem untagged, sysbench cpu tagged
------------------------------------------
Test Average Stdev
Alone 1306.90 0.94
nosmt 649.95 1.44
Aaron's full patchset: 586.06 1.77
Tim's first patchset: 852.50 4.11
Tim's second patchset: 663.88 44.43
coresched_idle 653.58 0.49
Sysbench mem tagged, sysbench cpu untagged
------------------------------------------
Test Average Stdev
Alone 1306.90 0.94
nosmt 649.95 1.44
Aaron's full patchset: 583.77 3.52
Tim's first patchset: 564.04 58.05
Tim's second patchset: 524.72 55.24
coresched_idle 653.30 0.81
Both sysbench tagged
--------------------
Test Average Stdev
Alone 1306.90 0.94
nosmt 649.95 1.44
Aaron's full patchset: 582.15 3.75
Tim's first patchset: 679.43 70.07
Tim's second patchset: 563.10 34.58
coresched_idle 653.12 1.68
As we can see from this stress-test, with the coresched_idle thread
being a real process, the fairness is more consistent (low stdev). Also,
the performance remains the same regardless of the tagging, and even
always slightly better than nosmt.
Thanks,
Julien
From: vpillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 17:41:38 +0000
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] coresched_idle thread
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
kernel/sched/sched.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 47 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index f7839bf96e8b..fe560739c247 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3639,6 +3639,51 @@ static inline bool cookie_match(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
return a->core_cookie == b->core_cookie;
}
+static int coresched_idle_worker(void *data)
+{
+ struct rq *rq = (struct rq *)data;
+
+ /*
+ * Transition to parked state and dequeue from runqueue.
+ * pick_task() will select us if needed without enqueueing.
+ */
+ set_special_state(TASK_PARKED);
+ schedule();
+
+ while (true) {
+ if (kthread_should_stop())
+ break;
+
+ play_idle(1);
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static void coresched_idle_worker_init(struct rq *rq)
+{
+
+ // XXX core_idle_task needs lock protection?
+ if (!rq->core_idle_task) {
+ rq->core_idle_task = kthread_create_on_cpu(coresched_idle_worker,
+ (void *)rq, cpu_of(rq), "coresched_idle");
+ if (rq->core_idle_task) {
+ wake_up_process(rq->core_idle_task);
+ }
+
+ }
+
+ return;
+}
+
+static void coresched_idle_worker_fini(struct rq *rq)
+{
+ if (rq->core_idle_task) {
+ kthread_stop(rq->core_idle_task);
+ rq->core_idle_task = NULL;
+ }
+}
+
// XXX fairness/fwd progress conditions
/*
* Returns
@@ -6774,6 +6819,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
atomic_set(&rq->nr_iowait, 0);
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
+ rq->core_idle_task = NULL;
rq->core = NULL;
rq->core_pick = NULL;
rq->core_enabled = 0;
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index e91c188a452c..c3ae0af55b05 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -965,6 +965,7 @@ struct rq {
unsigned int core_sched_seq;
struct rb_root core_tree;
bool core_forceidle;
+ struct task_struct *core_idle_task;
/* shared state */
unsigned int core_task_seq;
--
2.17.1
From: vpillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 18:22:55 +0000
Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/2] Use coresched_idle to force idle a sibling
Currently we use idle thread to force idle on a sibling. Lets
use the new coresched_idle thread that scheduler sees a valid
task during force idle.
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index fe560739c247..e35d69a81adb 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -244,23 +244,33 @@ static int __sched_core_stopper(void *data)
static DEFINE_MUTEX(sched_core_mutex);
static int sched_core_count;
+static void coresched_idle_worker_init(struct rq *rq);
+static void coresched_idle_worker_fini(struct rq *rq);
static void __sched_core_enable(void)
{
+ int cpu;
+
// XXX verify there are no cookie tasks (yet)
static_branch_enable(&__sched_core_enabled);
stop_machine(__sched_core_stopper, (void *)true, NULL);
+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
+ coresched_idle_worker_init(cpu_rq(cpu));
printk("core sched enabled\n");
}
static void __sched_core_disable(void)
{
+ int cpu;
+
// XXX verify there are no cookie tasks (left)
stop_machine(__sched_core_stopper, (void *)false, NULL);
static_branch_disable(&__sched_core_enabled);
+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
+ coresched_idle_worker_fini(cpu_rq(cpu));
printk("core sched disabled\n");
}
@@ -3626,14 +3636,25 @@ __pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
+static inline bool is_force_idle_task(struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ BUG_ON(task_rq(p)->core_idle_task == NULL);
+ return task_rq(p)->core_idle_task == p;
+}
+
+static inline bool is_core_idle_task(struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ return is_idle_task(p) || is_force_idle_task(p);
+}
+
static inline bool cookie_equals(struct task_struct *a, unsigned long cookie)
{
- return is_idle_task(a) || (a->core_cookie == cookie);
+ return is_core_idle_task(a) || (a->core_cookie == cookie);
}
static inline bool cookie_match(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
{
- if (is_idle_task(a) || is_idle_task(b))
+ if (is_core_idle_task(a) || is_core_idle_task(b))
return true;
return a->core_cookie == b->core_cookie;
@@ -3641,8 +3662,6 @@ static inline bool cookie_match(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
static int coresched_idle_worker(void *data)
{
- struct rq *rq = (struct rq *)data;
-
/*
* Transition to parked state and dequeue from runqueue.
* pick_task() will select us if needed without enqueueing.
@@ -3666,7 +3685,7 @@ static void coresched_idle_worker_init(struct rq *rq)
// XXX core_idle_task needs lock protection?
if (!rq->core_idle_task) {
rq->core_idle_task = kthread_create_on_cpu(coresched_idle_worker,
- (void *)rq, cpu_of(rq), "coresched_idle");
+ NULL, cpu_of(rq), "coresched_idle");
if (rq->core_idle_task) {
wake_up_process(rq->core_idle_task);
}
@@ -3684,6 +3703,14 @@ static void coresched_idle_worker_fini(struct rq *rq)
}
}
+static inline struct task_struct *core_idle_task(struct rq *rq)
+{
+ BUG_ON(rq->core_idle_task == NULL);
+
+ return rq->core_idle_task;
+
+}
+
// XXX fairness/fwd progress conditions
/*
* Returns
@@ -3709,7 +3736,7 @@ pick_task(struct rq *rq, const struct sched_class *class, struct task_struct *ma
*/
if (max && class_pick->core_cookie &&
prio_less(class_pick, max))
- return idle_sched_class.pick_task(rq);
+ return core_idle_task(rq);
return class_pick;
}
@@ -3853,7 +3880,7 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
goto done;
}
- if (!is_idle_task(p))
+ if (!is_force_idle_task(p))
occ++;
rq_i->core_pick = p;
@@ -3906,7 +3933,6 @@ next_class:;
rq->core->core_pick_seq = rq->core->core_task_seq;
next = rq->core_pick;
rq->core_sched_seq = rq->core->core_pick_seq;
- trace_printk("picked: %s/%d %lx\n", next->comm, next->pid, next->core_cookie);
/*
* Reschedule siblings
@@ -3924,13 +3950,24 @@ next_class:;
WARN_ON_ONCE(!rq_i->core_pick);
- if (is_idle_task(rq_i->core_pick) && rq_i->nr_running)
+ if (is_core_idle_task(rq_i->core_pick) && rq_i->nr_running) {
+ /*
+ * Matching logic can sometimes select idle_task when
+ * iterating the sched_classes. If that selection is
+ * actually a forced idle case, we need to update the
+ * core_pick to coresched_idle.
+ */
+ if (is_idle_task(rq_i->core_pick))
+ rq_i->core_pick = core_idle_task(rq_i);
rq_i->core_forceidle = true;
+ }
rq_i->core_pick->core_occupation = occ;
- if (i == cpu)
+ if (i == cpu) {
+ next = rq_i->core_pick;
continue;
+ }
if (rq_i->curr != rq_i->core_pick) {
trace_printk("IPI(%d)\n", i);
@@ -3947,6 +3984,7 @@ next_class:;
WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
}
}
+ trace_printk("picked: %s/%d %lx\n", next->comm, next->pid, next->core_cookie);
done:
set_next_task(rq, next);
@@ -4200,6 +4238,12 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
* is a RELEASE barrier),
*/
++*switch_count;
+#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
+ if (next == rq->core_idle_task)
+ next->state = TASK_RUNNING;
+ else if (prev == rq->core_idle_task)
+ prev->state = TASK_PARKED;
+#endif
trace_sched_switch(preempt, prev, next);
@@ -6479,6 +6523,7 @@ int sched_cpu_activate(unsigned int cpu)
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
if (static_branch_unlikely(&__sched_core_enabled)) {
rq->core_enabled = true;
+ coresched_idle_worker_init(rq);
}
#endif
}
@@ -6535,6 +6580,7 @@ int sched_cpu_deactivate(unsigned int cpu)
struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
if (static_branch_unlikely(&__sched_core_enabled)) {
rq->core_enabled = false;
+ coresched_idle_worker_fini(rq);
}
#endif
static_branch_dec_cpuslocked(&sched_smt_present);
--
2.17.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-05 1:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 161+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-29 20:36 [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3 Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 01/16] stop_machine: Fix stop_cpus_in_progress ordering Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-08-08 10:54 ` [tip:sched/core] " tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-26 16:19 ` [RFC PATCH v3 01/16] " mark gross
2019-08-26 16:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 02/16] sched: Fix kerneldoc comment for ia64_set_curr_task Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-08-08 10:55 ` [tip:sched/core] " tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-26 16:20 ` [RFC PATCH v3 02/16] " mark gross
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 03/16] sched: Wrap rq::lock access Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 04/16] sched/{rt,deadline}: Fix set_next_task vs pick_next_task Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-08-08 10:55 ` [tip:sched/core] " tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 05/16] sched: Add task_struct pointer to sched_class::set_curr_task Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-08-08 10:57 ` [tip:sched/core] " tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 06/16] sched/fair: Export newidle_balance() Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-08-08 10:58 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/fair: Expose newidle_balance() tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 07/16] sched: Allow put_prev_task() to drop rq->lock Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-08-08 10:58 ` [tip:sched/core] " tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-26 16:51 ` [RFC PATCH v3 07/16] " mark gross
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 08/16] sched: Rework pick_next_task() slow-path Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-08-08 10:59 ` [tip:sched/core] " tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-26 17:01 ` [RFC PATCH v3 08/16] " mark gross
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 09/16] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task() Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-08-26 17:14 ` mark gross
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 10/16] sched: Core-wide rq->lock Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-05-31 11:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-31 15:23 ` Vineeth Pillai
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 11/16] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-08-26 20:59 ` mark gross
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 12/16] sched: A quick and dirty cgroup tagging interface Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 13/16] sched: Add core wide task selection and scheduling Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-06-07 23:36 ` Pawan Gupta
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 14/16] sched/fair: Add a few assertions Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 15/16] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-05-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 16/16] sched: Debug bits Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-05-29 21:02 ` Peter Oskolkov
2019-05-30 14:04 ` [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3 Aubrey Li
2019-05-30 14:17 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-05-31 4:55 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-31 3:01 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-31 5:12 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-31 6:09 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-31 6:53 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-31 7:44 ` Aaron Lu
2019-05-31 8:26 ` Aubrey Li
2019-05-31 21:08 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-06-06 15:26 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-06-12 1:52 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-06-12 16:06 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-06-12 16:33 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-06-13 0:03 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-06-13 3:22 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-06-17 2:51 ` Aubrey Li
2019-06-19 18:33 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-07-18 10:07 ` Aaron Lu
2019-07-18 23:27 ` Tim Chen
2019-07-19 5:52 ` Aaron Lu
2019-07-19 11:48 ` Aubrey Li
2019-07-19 18:33 ` Tim Chen
2019-07-22 10:26 ` Aubrey Li
2019-07-22 10:43 ` Aaron Lu
2019-07-23 2:52 ` Aubrey Li
2019-07-25 14:30 ` Aaron Lu
2019-07-25 14:31 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] wrapper for cfs_rq->min_vruntime Aaron Lu
2019-07-25 14:32 ` [PATCH 2/3] core vruntime comparison Aaron Lu
2019-08-06 14:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-25 14:33 ` [PATCH 3/3] temp hack to make tick based schedule happen Aaron Lu
2019-07-25 21:42 ` [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3 Li, Aubrey
2019-07-26 15:21 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-07-26 21:29 ` Tim Chen
2019-07-31 2:42 ` Li, Aubrey
2019-08-02 15:37 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-08-05 15:55 ` Tim Chen
2019-08-06 3:24 ` Aaron Lu
2019-08-06 6:56 ` Aubrey Li
2019-08-06 7:04 ` Aaron Lu
2019-08-06 12:24 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-08-06 13:49 ` Aaron Lu
2019-08-06 16:14 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-08-06 14:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-06 15:53 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-08-06 17:03 ` Tim Chen
2019-08-06 17:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-06 21:19 ` Tim Chen
2019-08-08 6:47 ` Aaron Lu
2019-08-08 17:27 ` Tim Chen
2019-08-08 21:42 ` Tim Chen
2019-08-10 14:15 ` Aaron Lu
2019-08-12 15:38 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-08-13 2:24 ` Aaron Lu
2019-08-08 12:55 ` Aaron Lu
2019-08-08 16:39 ` Tim Chen
2019-08-10 14:18 ` Aaron Lu
2019-08-05 20:09 ` Phil Auld
2019-08-06 13:54 ` Aaron Lu
2019-08-06 14:17 ` Phil Auld
2019-08-06 14:41 ` Aaron Lu
2019-08-06 14:55 ` Phil Auld
2019-08-07 8:58 ` Dario Faggioli
2019-08-07 17:10 ` Tim Chen
2019-08-15 16:09 ` Dario Faggioli
2019-08-16 2:33 ` Aaron Lu
2019-09-05 1:44 ` Julien Desfossez [this message]
2019-09-06 22:17 ` Tim Chen
2019-09-18 21:27 ` Tim Chen
2019-09-06 18:30 ` Tim Chen
2019-09-11 14:02 ` Aaron Lu
2019-09-11 16:19 ` Tim Chen
2019-09-11 16:47 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-09-12 12:35 ` Aaron Lu
2019-09-12 17:29 ` Tim Chen
2019-09-13 14:15 ` Aaron Lu
2019-09-13 17:13 ` Tim Chen
2019-09-30 11:53 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-10-02 20:48 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-10-10 13:54 ` Aaron Lu
2019-10-10 14:29 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-10-11 7:33 ` Aaron Lu
2019-10-11 11:32 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-10-11 12:01 ` Aaron Lu
2019-10-11 12:10 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-10-12 3:55 ` Aaron Lu
2019-10-13 12:44 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-10-14 9:57 ` Aaron Lu
2019-10-21 12:30 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-09-12 12:04 ` Aaron Lu
2019-09-12 17:05 ` Tim Chen
2019-09-13 13:57 ` Aaron Lu
2019-09-12 23:12 ` Aubrey Li
2019-09-15 14:14 ` Aaron Lu
2019-09-18 1:33 ` Aubrey Li
2019-09-18 20:40 ` Tim Chen
2019-09-18 22:16 ` Aubrey Li
2019-09-30 14:36 ` Vineeth Remanan Pillai
2019-10-29 20:40 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-11-01 21:42 ` Tim Chen
2019-10-29 9:11 ` Dario Faggioli
2019-10-29 9:15 ` Dario Faggioli
2019-10-29 9:16 ` Dario Faggioli
2019-10-29 9:17 ` Dario Faggioli
2019-10-29 9:18 ` Dario Faggioli
2019-10-29 9:18 ` Dario Faggioli
2019-10-29 9:19 ` Dario Faggioli
2019-10-29 9:20 ` Dario Faggioli
2019-10-29 20:34 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-11-15 16:30 ` Dario Faggioli
2019-09-25 2:40 ` Aubrey Li
2019-09-25 17:24 ` Tim Chen
2019-09-25 22:07 ` Aubrey Li
2019-09-30 15:22 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-08-27 21:14 ` Matthew Garrett
2019-08-27 21:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-28 15:30 ` Phil Auld
2019-08-28 16:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-28 16:37 ` Tim Chen
2019-08-29 14:30 ` Phil Auld
2019-08-29 14:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-10 14:27 ` Julien Desfossez
2019-09-18 21:12 ` Tim Chen
2019-08-28 15:59 ` Tim Chen
2019-08-28 16:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-08-27 23:24 ` Aubrey Li
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190905014423.GA5234@sinkpad \
--to=jdesfossez@digitalocean.com \
--cc=aaron.lu@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=aubrey.intel@gmail.com \
--cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dfaggioli@suse.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kerrnel@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=naravamudan@digitalocean.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vpillai@digitalocean.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).