![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 08:47 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > >>On Sun, 2006-03-05 at 21:00 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> >>>Is there something else I've missed? >> >>Maybe. Does this add anything to the picture? During boot, >>recalc_task_prio() is called with now < p->timestamp. This causes quite >>a stir. If you WARN_ON(now < p->timestamp) or printk, you'll have a >>dead box due to hundreds of gripes as things churn. Adding... >> >>if (unlikely(now < p->timestamp)) >> __sleep_time = 0ULL; >> >>...turns it into exactly one gripe. > > > Nope. Further research shows that this is just a speed-step problem. > Still, the scheduler needs to protect itself, because even with all of > the speed-step stuff enabled, these continue to occurr even after > boot-up if you switch to a low power setting, which screws up the > scheduler. > sched_clock needs to be fixed, rather than scheduler. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-03-07 06:58 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||