Re: -rt scheduling: wakeup bug?

2007-10-04 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Mike Kravetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > if (rq->curr && p && rq && _need_resched()) > > trace_special_pid(p->pid, PRIO(p), PRIO(rq->curr)); > > Not an issue with the patch, just that last bit of code pulled in for > context. I don't think it is a bug, but the checking of

Re: -rt scheduling: wakeup bug?

2007-10-04 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Mike Kravetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if (rq-curr p rq _need_resched()) trace_special_pid(p-pid, PRIO(p), PRIO(rq-curr)); Not an issue with the patch, just that last bit of code pulled in for context. I don't think it is a bug, but the checking of 'rq' after

Re: -rt scheduling: wakeup bug?

2007-10-03 Thread Mike Kravetz
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 07:06:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Index: linux-rt-rebase.q/kernel/sched.c > === > --- linux-rt-rebase.q.orig/kernel/sched.c > +++ linux-rt-rebase.q/kernel/sched.c > @@ -1819,6 +1819,13 @@ out_set_cpu: >

Re: -rt scheduling: wakeup bug?

2007-10-03 Thread Mike Kravetz
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 07:06:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: Index: linux-rt-rebase.q/kernel/sched.c === --- linux-rt-rebase.q.orig/kernel/sched.c +++ linux-rt-rebase.q/kernel/sched.c @@ -1819,6 +1819,13 @@ out_set_cpu:

Re: -rt scheduling: wakeup bug?

2007-10-02 Thread Steven Rostedt
-- On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Mike Kravetz wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 07:06:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Mike Kravetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > My observations/debugging/conclusions are based on an earlier version > > > of the code. It appears the same code/issue still

Re: -rt scheduling: wakeup bug?

2007-10-02 Thread Mike Kravetz
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 07:06:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Mike Kravetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > My observations/debugging/conclusions are based on an earlier version > > of the code. It appears the same code/issue still exists in the most > > version. But, I have not not done

Re: -rt scheduling: wakeup bug?

2007-10-02 Thread Mike Kravetz
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 07:06:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Mike Kravetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My observations/debugging/conclusions are based on an earlier version of the code. It appears the same code/issue still exists in the most version. But, I have not not done any work

Re: -rt scheduling: wakeup bug?

2007-10-02 Thread Steven Rostedt
-- On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Mike Kravetz wrote: On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 07:06:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Mike Kravetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My observations/debugging/conclusions are based on an earlier version of the code. It appears the same code/issue still exists in the most

Re: -rt scheduling: wakeup bug?

2007-10-01 Thread Ingo Molnar
hi Mike, * Mike Kravetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been trying to track down some unexpected realtime latencies and > believe one source is a bug in the wakeup code. Specifically, this is > within the try_to_wake_up() routine. Within this routine there is the > following code segment:

RT scheduling: wakeup bug?

2007-10-01 Thread Mike Kravetz
I've been trying to track down some unexpected realtime latencies and believe one source is a bug in the wakeup code. Specifically, this is within the try_to_wake_up() routine. Within this routine there is the following code segment: /* * If a newly woken up RT task cannot

RT scheduling: wakeup bug?

2007-10-01 Thread Mike Kravetz
I've been trying to track down some unexpected realtime latencies and believe one source is a bug in the wakeup code. Specifically, this is within the try_to_wake_up() routine. Within this routine there is the following code segment: /* * If a newly woken up RT task cannot

Re: -rt scheduling: wakeup bug?

2007-10-01 Thread Ingo Molnar
hi Mike, * Mike Kravetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been trying to track down some unexpected realtime latencies and believe one source is a bug in the wakeup code. Specifically, this is within the try_to_wake_up() routine. Within this routine there is the following code segment: