[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1335180849.28150.121.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:34:09 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
cfriesen@...tel.com, oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
darren@...art.com, johan.eker@...csson.com, p.faure@...tech.ch,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
michael@...rulasolutions.com, fchecconi@...il.com,
tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it, nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it,
luca.abeni@...tn.it, dhaval.giani@...il.com, hgu1972@...il.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@...ux.it,
insop.song@...csson.com, liming.wang@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/16] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE policy implementation.
On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 09:14 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> + /*
> + * At this point, the deadline really should be "in
> + * the future" with respect to rq->clock. If it's
> + * not, we are, for some reason, lagging too much!
> + * Anyway, after having warn userspace abut that,
> + * we still try to keep the things running by
> + * resetting the deadline and the budget of the
> + * entity.
> + */
> + if (dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, rq->clock)) {
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
Doing printk() and friends from scheduler context isn't actually safe
and can lock up your machine.. there's a printk_sched() that
maybe-sorta-kinda can get your complaints out..
> + dl_se->deadline = rq->clock + dl_se->dl_deadline;
> + dl_se->runtime = dl_se->dl_runtime;
> + }
--
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