[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1232468376.4886.88.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:19:36 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Kevin Shanahan <kmshanah@...b.org.au>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug #12465] KVM guests stalling on 2.6.28 (bisected)
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 17:06 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> se.wait_max : -92.027877
>
> that field is not supposed to be negative. Mike, Peter, any ideas?
Possibly unrelated, but whilst I was poking at try_to_wake_up yesterday,
I thought I spotted a site where we fail to update rq clock.
Since we just moved the task to a new cpu (and thus rq) we need to
update_rq_clock() again.
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index d7ae5f4..6cd5e52 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2398,6 +2398,7 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int sync)
if (cpu != orig_cpu) {
set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
+ update_rq_clock(rq);
/* might preempt at this point */
rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
old_state = p->state;
--
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