[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1219924853.6443.18.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:00:53 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 13:50 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 01:19:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 13:09 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > 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?
> >
> > Not currently, working on that though.
>
> I wonder if it would make sense to break affinities in extreme case?
> With that even the workqueues would work again.
Then people can no longer assume stuff like queue_work_on() etc.. works.
Users of such code might depend on it actually running on the specified
cpu.
--
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