[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250923104739.GA514793@pauld.westford.csb>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2025 06:47:39 -0400
From: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To: frederic@...nel.org
Cc: bsegall@...gle.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...e.de, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, tanghui20@...wei.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
wangtao554@...wei.com, zhangqiao22@...wei.com,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Increase sched_tick_remote timeout
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 12:13:00PM -0400 Phil Auld wrote:
> Increase the sched_tick_remote WARN_ON timeout to remove false
> positives due to temporarily busy HK cpus. The suggestion
> was 30 seconds to catch really stuck remote tick processing
> but not trigger it too easily.
>
> Signed-off-by: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
> Suggested-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Frederic ack'd this. Any other thoughts or opinions on this one
character patch?
Cheers,
Phil
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index be00629f0ba4..ef90d358252d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -5724,7 +5724,7 @@ static void sched_tick_remote(struct work_struct *work)
> * reasonable amount of time.
> */
> u64 delta = rq_clock_task(rq) - curr->se.exec_start;
> - WARN_ON_ONCE(delta > (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * 3);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(delta > (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC * 30);
> }
> curr->sched_class->task_tick(rq, curr, 0);
>
> --
> 2.51.0
>
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists