[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161008080019.GE3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 10:00:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...onical.com>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, efault@....de, tglx@...utronix.de,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [v4.8-rc1 Regression] sched/fair: Apply more PELT fixes
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> Hello Peter,
>
> A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0]. After a kernel
> bisect, it was found that reverting the following commit resolved this bug:
>
> commit 3d30544f02120b884bba2a9466c87dba980e3be5
> Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Date: Tue Jun 21 14:27:50 2016 +0200
>
> sched/fair: Apply more PELT fixes
That commit doesn't revert cleanly, did you take out more?
> The regression was introduced as of v4.8-rc1. The bug can be reproduced
> on an X1 Carbon with the following:
> stress -c $your_total_cpu_cores
>
> I was hoping to get your feedback, since you are the patch author. Do
> you think gathering any additional data will help diagnose this issue,
> or would it be best to submit a revert request?
I'll try and have a look asap, but I'm traveling next week so it might a
tad slower than normal.
If you could provide a /proc/sched_debug dump while the thing is running
that'd might be useful.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists