On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The bean counting problem below can contribute.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/30/7
Hmm. That never got applied. I didn't apply it originally because of
timing and wanting clarifications, but apparently it never made it
into the -tip tree either.
Ingo, PeterZ - comments?
Looking again at that patch (the commit message still doesn't strike
me as wonderfully explanatory :^) makes me worry, though.
Is that
if (rq->skip_clock_update-- > 0)
return;
really right? If skip_clock_update was zero (normal), it now gets set
to -1, which has its own specific meaning (see "force clock update"
comment in kernel/sched/rt.c). Is that intentional? That seems insane.
Or should it be
if (rq->skip_clock_update > 0) {
rq->skip_clock_update = 0;
return;
}
or what? Maybe there was a reason the patch never got applied even to -tip.
At the same time, the whole "incapacitated by the rt throttle long
enough for the hard lockup detector to trigger" commentary about that
skip_clock_update issue does make me go "Hmmm..". It would certainly
explain Dave's incomprehensible watchdog messages..
Linus
--
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/
