* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 09:15:39AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Apr 2018, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >
> > > The case for the rt task throttling (which this workload also hits) can
> > > be ignored in
> > > that the skip_update
* Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 09:15:39AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Apr 2018, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >
> > > The case for the rt task throttling (which this workload also hits) can
> > > be ignored in
> > > that the skip_update call is actually bogus
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 09:15:39AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2018, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> > The case for the rt task throttling (which this workload also hits) can be
> > ignored in
> > that the skip_update call is actually bogus and quite the contrary (the
> > request
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 09:15:39AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2018, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> > The case for the rt task throttling (which this workload also hits) can be
> > ignored in
> > that the skip_update call is actually bogus and quite the contrary (the
> > request
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
The case for the rt task throttling (which this workload also hits) can be
ignored in
that the skip_update call is actually bogus and quite the contrary (the request
bits
are removed/reverted).
While at it, how about this trivial patch?
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
The case for the rt task throttling (which this workload also hits) can be
ignored in
that the skip_update call is actually bogus and quite the contrary (the request
bits
are removed/reverted).
While at it, how about this trivial patch?
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 09:49:54AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> While running rt-tests' pi_stress program I got the following splat:
>
> 444.884597] [ cut here ]
> [ 444.894784] rq->clock_update_flags < RQCF_ACT_SKIP
> [ 444.894798] WARNING: CPU: 27 PID: 0 at
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 09:49:54AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> While running rt-tests' pi_stress program I got the following splat:
>
> 444.884597] [ cut here ]
> [ 444.894784] rq->clock_update_flags < RQCF_ACT_SKIP
> [ 444.894798] WARNING: CPU: 27 PID: 0 at
On Mon, 02 Apr, at 09:49:54AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> We can get rid of it be the "traditional" means of adding an
> update_rq_clock() call
> after acquiring the rq->lock in do_sched_rt_period_timer().
>
> The case for the rt task throttling (which this workload also hits) can be
> ignored
On Mon, 02 Apr, at 09:49:54AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> We can get rid of it be the "traditional" means of adding an
> update_rq_clock() call
> after acquiring the rq->lock in do_sched_rt_period_timer().
>
> The case for the rt task throttling (which this workload also hits) can be
> ignored
While running rt-tests' pi_stress program I got the following splat:
444.884597] [ cut here ]
[ 444.894784] rq->clock_update_flags < RQCF_ACT_SKIP
[ 444.894798] WARNING: CPU: 27 PID: 0 at kernel/sched/sched.h:960
assert_clock_updated.isra.38.part.39+0x13/0x20
[
While running rt-tests' pi_stress program I got the following splat:
444.884597] [ cut here ]
[ 444.894784] rq->clock_update_flags < RQCF_ACT_SKIP
[ 444.894798] WARNING: CPU: 27 PID: 0 at kernel/sched/sched.h:960
assert_clock_updated.isra.38.part.39+0x13/0x20
[
12 matches
Mail list logo