[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2030b198180259eede6384cc6a6bc9bc9f64f874.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:27:21 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Luis Machado <luis.machado@....com>, Dietmar Eggemann
<dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com>, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kprateek.nayak@....com, wuyun.abel@...edance.com,
youssefesmat@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/24] sched/uclamg: Handle delayed dequeue
On Wed, 2024-09-11 at 11:13 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 11:10:26AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > Hm, would be interesting to know how the heck he's triggering that.
> >
> > My x86_64 box refuses to produce any such artifacts with anything I've
> > tossed at it, including full LTP with enterprise RT and !RT configs,
> > both in master and my local SLE15-SP7 branch. Hohum.
>
> Yeah, my hackbench runs also didn't show that. Perhaps something funny
> with cgroups. I didn't test cgroup bandwidth for exanple.
That's all on in enterprise configs tested with LTP, so hypothetically
got some testing. I also turned on AUTOGROUP in !RT configs so cgroups
would get some exercise no matter what I'm mucking about with.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists