[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <xm26oal7s00b.fsf@sword-of-the-dawn.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 10:48:36 -0700
From: bsegall@...gle.com
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...n.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
Mohammed Naser <mnaser@...xhost.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org>, Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: Update runtime of prev task before doing pick_next_task()
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...n.com> writes:
> pick_next_task() puts prev rq's task. This may lead to runtime
> expiration and to dequeueing of all scheduling class's tasks
> because of throttling. And the current logic is that put_prev_task()
> must be called in the pick method of next task's class.
>
> This was fixed for RT and DL classes, while fair class have this
> problem. So, instead of doing partial solutions, let's update prev
> task's runtime for all classes in __schedule() and fix the problem
> completelly.
>
> Also, let's freeze the clock during pick_next_task() to be sure
> new expirations of runtime won't happen.
>
> Reported-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
> Reported-by: Mohammed Naser <mnaser@...xhost.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...n.com>
If this is actually the bug I sent a patch for (and that I was correct
in guessing what the issue /was/, which is not at all certain), this
won't actually eliminate the issue - I couldn't find a race involving
actual updates but did find one with disable/enable.
--
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