[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190513121933.GI3923@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 05:19:33 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:10:52AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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 ;-)
Fair enough. And I doubt that this is the firs time that it has
tortured other people rather than torturing RCU. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists