[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250423112651.GA437160@bytedance>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 19:26:51 +0800
From: Aaron Lu <ziqianlu@...edance.com>
To: Florian Bezdeka <florian.bezdeka@...mens.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Xi Wang <xii@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>,
Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>,
Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 7/7] sched/fair: alternative way of accounting
throttle time
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 05:03:19PM +0200, Florian Bezdeka wrote:
... ...
> Right, I should have mentioned that crucial detail. Sorry.
>
> I ported your series to 6.14.2 because we did/do not trust anything
> newer yet for testing. The problematic workload was not available in
> our lab at that time, so we had to be very carefully about deployed
> kernel versions.
>
> I'm attaching the backported patches now, so you can compare / review
> if you like. Spoiler: The only differences are line numbers ;-)
I didn't notice any problem regarding backport after a quick look.
May I know what kind of workload triggered this warning? I haven't been
able to trigger it, I'll have to stare harder at the code.
Thanks,
Aaron
Powered by blists - more mailing lists