[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260210183515.GI3016024@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 19:35:15 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
Cc: Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>, mingo@...nel.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
wangtao554@...wei.com, quzicheng@...wei.com,
wuyun.abel@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched: Various reweight_entity() fixes
On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 11:39:14PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Since you mentioned there is some bound to the number of copies when
> the hang is observed, can you please share your system details and
> the number of CPUs it has?
He had that information in another email, 6 cores/12 threads.
For me, I got to 21160 spread over 12 threads when it went boom. That
translates to aroun 1763 per CPU. Which is a fairly silly number of
active tasks, but it *should* work.
It's a bit tedious to reproduce, but I'll prod at it some too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists