[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251103215623.GA73531@pauld.westford.csb>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 16:56:23 -0500
From: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
To: peterz@...radead.org
Cc: bsegall@...gle.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...e.de, mingo@...hat.com,
frederic@...nel.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 Peter,
On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 06:47:39AM -0400 Phil Auld wrote:
> 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?
Can we have this timeout increase, please?
Thanks,
Phil
>
> 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