* 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
* 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
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:
>
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:
--
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
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
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
--
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
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:
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
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
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:
12 matches
Mail list logo