[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1334461470.5751.21.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 05:44:30 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: RFC [patch] sched,cgroup_sched: convince RT_GROUP_SCHED
throttle to work
On Sun, 2012-04-15 at 05:37 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 13:10 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 11:08 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > > @@ -782,6 +782,19 @@ static int do_sched_rt_period_timer(stru
> > > const struct cpumask *span;
> > >
> > > span = sched_rt_period_mask();
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED
> > > + /*
> > > + * FIXME: isolated CPUs should really leave the root task group,
> >
> > No no, that's the wrong fix, the right fix is to remove isolcpus :-)
>
> Yeah, isolcpus needs to die, but...
>
> > I guess the alternative 'fix' is to not account the rt_runtime on
> > isolated cpus.. does something like the below actually work?
>
> I haven't tried it, because the exact same thing happens when you
> isolate via cpusets directly below root. One timer, two (or more)
> rd->span, so _somebody_ is screwed.
You _could_ bail on !rq->sd I suppose, but the way I hacked around it,
the user can keep the throttle for testing/troubleshooting their
isolated setup, and turn it off in production. OTOH, auto throttle
disable for all isolated sets could work just as well.
-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