[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E4B4BB6.7000400@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 22:03:50 -0700
From: Nivedita Singhvi <niv@...ibm.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
CC: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.0.1-rt11
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 12:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 05:10:08PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 07:17 -0700, Nivedita Singhvi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Which test were you running? Because I'm not seeing it
>>>> on our x3550 M3..
>>> -rt11 did not trip up just idling along like a couple earlier releases
>>> did, but did stall when I tried to run ltp realtime testcases.
>> But please note that if your realtime workload is CPU-bound with prio
>> greater than that of RCU_SOFTIRQ, stalls would be expected.
>
> The (broken) jitter testcase runs two threads, an interrupter thread at
> prio 80, and a worker at 10. Both sleep. I just ran the testcase
> standalone, and no stall happened, so perhaps something from an earlier
> testcase got stuck.. or something.
>
> I'll try maxing out boost, and see what happens. It was set to 50.
>
> -Mike
I suppose the other thing to watch out for is the stall
any RT task might see when sched_rt_runtime_us is maxed
out -- it was the occasional cause for a failure or two,
as well.
thanks,
Nivedita
--
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