[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1233380284.5636.5.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:38:04 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Brian Rogers <brian@...w.org>
Cc: Nathanael Hoyle <nhoyle@...letech.com>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
stable <stable@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: scheduler nice 19 versus 'idle' behavior / static low-priority
scheduling
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 14:12 -0800, Brian Rogers wrote:
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 02:59 -0500, Nathanael Hoyle wrote:
> >
> >> I am running foldingathome under it at the moment, and it seems to be
> >> improving the situation somewhat, but I still need/want to test with
> >> Mike's referenced patches.
> >>
> > You will most definitely encounter evilness running SCHED_IDLE tasks in
> > a kernel without the SCHED_IDLE fixes.
> >
> Speaking of SCHED_IDLE fixes, is
> 6bc912b71b6f33b041cfde93ca3f019cbaa852bc going to be put into the next
> stable 2.6.28 release? Without it on 2.6.28.2, I can still produce
> minutes-long freezes with BOINC or other idle processes.
>
> With the above commit on top of 2.6.28.2 and also
> cce7ade803699463ecc62a065ca522004f7ccb3d, the problem is solved, though
> I assume cce7ad isn't actually required to fix that, and I can test that
> if desired.
I think they both should go to stable, but dunno if they're headed that
direction or not.
One way to find out, CCs added.
-Mike
--
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