Re: [PATCH 0/3] sched: Fix wakeup preemption regression
On Tue, 10 May, at 07:43:14PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > A recent commit caused an interactivity/starvation issue because we wrecked rq > local wakeup preemption. > > These patches rectify this while also (hopefully) keeping the problem that led > to the fault patch fixed. > > Mike, Pavan, could you guys please confirm? FWIW, I took a quick look over these patches and they made sense to me. (I appreciate the comment block above enqueue_entity())
Re: [PATCH 0/3] sched: Fix wakeup preemption regression
Hi Peter, On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > A recent commit caused an interactivity/starvation issue because we wrecked rq > local wakeup preemption. > > These patches rectify this while also (hopefully) keeping the problem that led > to the fault patch fixed. > > Mike, Pavan, could you guys please confirm? > > I tested with your latest patches. The original problem (migrated task's vruntime falling beyond the min_vruntime) is not reproducible. Thanks, Pavan -- Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Re: [PATCH 0/3] sched: Fix wakeup preemption regression
On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 19:43 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Mike, Pavan, could you guys please confirm? Plugging the series into master.today, all seems peachy on my end. -Mike
[PATCH 0/3] sched: Fix wakeup preemption regression
A recent commit caused an interactivity/starvation issue because we wrecked rq local wakeup preemption. These patches rectify this while also (hopefully) keeping the problem that led to the fault patch fixed. Mike, Pavan, could you guys please confirm?
