[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1274716514.5605.32372.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 17:55:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com
Cc: "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, tj@...nel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>,
Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make sure timers have migrated before killing
migration_thread
On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 20:46 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 03:28:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 15:29 +0530, Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > > since _cpu_up() and _cpu_down() can never run in
> > > parallel, because of cpu_add_remove_lock.
> >
> > Ah indeed. I guess your initial patch works then.
>
> One thing I found surprising was that a cpu's rt-bandwidth renewal could be
> dependant on another cpu's (rt-bandwidth) timer firing ontime. In this case, we
> had migration/23 pulled over to CPU0 and we hung later waiting for migration/23
> to exit. migration/23 was not exiting because it could not run on CPU0 (as
> CPU0's rt-bandwidth had expired). This situation remained forever. I would have
> expected CPU0's bandwidth to have been renewed independent of some timer on
> CPU23 to fire - maybe I am missing something not obvious in the code?
The bandwidth constraint is per cgroup, and cgroups span cpus.
--
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