[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190715132250.GF3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 15:22:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+4bfbbf28a2e50ab07368@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, eladr@...lanox.com,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: rcu detected stall in ext4_write_checks
On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 06:16:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 4. SCHED_DEADLINE treats the other three scheduling classes as each
> having a period, deadline, and a modest CPU consumption budget
> for the members of the class in aggregate. But this has to have
> been discussed before. How did that go?
Yeah; this has been proposed a number of times; and I think everybody
agrees that it is a good idea, but nobody has so far sat down and wrote
the patches.
Or rather; we would've gotten this for 'free' with the rt-cgroup
rewrite, but that's been stuck forever due to affinity being difficult.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists