From: Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
oprofile-list <oprofile-list@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] oprofile: Remove 'WQ on CPUx, prefer CPUy' warning
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 20:53:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1345834411-24940-3-git-send-email-robert.richter@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1345834411-24940-1-git-send-email-robert.richter@amd.com>
Under certain workloads we see the following warnings:
WQ on CPU0, prefer CPU1
WQ on CPU0, prefer CPU2
WQ on CPU0, prefer CPU3
It warns the user that the wq to access a per-cpu buffers runs not on
the same cpu. This happens if the wq is rescheduled on a different cpu
than where the buffer is located. This was probably implemented to
detect performance issues. Not sure if there actually is one as the
buffers are copied to a single buffer anyway which should be the
actual bottleneck.
We wont change WQ implementation. Since a user can do nothing the
warning is pointless. Removing it.
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>
---
drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c | 11 +++--------
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c b/drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c
index b8ef8dd..8aa73fa 100644
--- a/drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c
+++ b/drivers/oprofile/cpu_buffer.c
@@ -451,14 +451,9 @@ static void wq_sync_buffer(struct work_struct *work)
{
struct oprofile_cpu_buffer *b =
container_of(work, struct oprofile_cpu_buffer, work.work);
- if (b->cpu != smp_processor_id()) {
- printk(KERN_DEBUG "WQ on CPU%d, prefer CPU%d\n",
- smp_processor_id(), b->cpu);
-
- if (!cpu_online(b->cpu)) {
- cancel_delayed_work(&b->work);
- return;
- }
+ if (b->cpu != smp_processor_id() && !cpu_online(b->cpu)) {
+ cancel_delayed_work(&b->work);
+ return;
}
sync_buffer(b->cpu);
--
1.7.8.6
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-24 18:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-24 18:53 [PATCH 0/2] oprofile fixes and updates Robert Richter
2012-08-24 18:53 ` [PATCH 1/2] oprofile, s390: Fix uninitialized memory access when writing to oprofilefs Robert Richter
2012-08-24 18:53 ` Robert Richter [this message]
2012-08-27 16:08 ` [PATCH 2/2] oprofile: Remove 'WQ on CPUx, prefer CPUy' warning Andi Kleen
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=1345834411-24940-3-git-send-email-robert.richter@amd.com \
--to=robert.richter@amd.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oprofile-list@lists.sourceforge.net \
/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
Powered by JetHome