[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080828110923.GL26610@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:09:23 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>,
Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] sched: disabled rt-bandwidth by default
> Even if the system has multiple CPUs, and even if just a single CPU is
> fully utilized by an RT task, without the rt-limit the system will still
> lock up in practice due to various other factors: workqueues and tasks
> being 'stuck' on CPUs that host an RT hog.
The load balancer will not notice that a particular CPU is busy
with real time tasks?
> While there's obviously CPU
> time available on other CPUs, you cannot run 'top', the desktop will
> freeze, work flows of the system can be stuck, etc, etc..
I had such a situation at least once in the past (not due
run away RT but due a kernel bug) and even with 2 out of 4 CPUs blocked
the system was still quite usable. top/kill definitely worked. The system
didn't have a desktop, but I didn't notice many problems in shell use.
Ok it's just one sample.
That said I don't think having such a limit by default is a bad idea actually.
Just handling it in the scheduler anyways is also probably good because
it can happen even due to other issues than just run away RT tasks.
-Andi
--
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