[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190513081052.GJ2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 10:10:52 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>, joelaf@...gle.com,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Question about sched_setaffinity()
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 04:07:42PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > The below trace explain the issue. Some Paul person did it, see below.
> > It's broken per construction :-)
>
> *facepalm* Hence the very strange ->cpus_allowed mask. I really
> should have figured that one out.
I guess it's called a torture framework for a reason ;-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists