So I still think that "sched: Add missing call to calc_load_exit_idle()" should be reverted in 3.5 branch...
> On 10/06/2012 01:23 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, 2012-10-05 at 10:10 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >>> Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 15:27 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> >>>>> I'm puzzled as well. Any ideas if I should do anything here or not? >>>> >>>> So I think the current v3.5.5 code is fine. >>> >>> Now I'm puzzled. You wrote: >>> >>> | However, since we don't restart the tick, we won't be sampling load >>> muck >>> | and calling calc_load_exit_idle() from there is bound to confuse >>> state. >>> >>> Doesn't that mean 900404e5d201 "sched: Add missing call to >>> calc_load_exit_idle()" which is part of 3.5.5 was problematic? Or >>> did I just miscount the number of "not"s? >> >> >> Argh, yeah, so now I've managed to confuse everyone I'm afraid. >> >> You are right, v3.5.5 has one calc_load_exit_idle() too many, the one in >> tick_nohz_update_jiffies() needs to go. >> >> Sorry.. I got entirely confused figuring out wth happened with 3.6. >> > High loadavg reported with v3.6, and I just checked the upstream code, > which puzzled many people. Sorry for that~ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/