[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [git pull] scheduler fixes
    Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * Mike Galbraith <> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 04:43 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    >>> just popped up - another
    >>> scheduler regression. It has been bisected.
    >> Seems pretty clear. I'd suggest reverting it.
    > We can revert it (and will revert it if no solution is found), but i'd
    > also like to understand why it happens, because that kind of regression
    > from this change is unexpected - we might be hiding some bug that could
    > pop up under less debuggable circumstances, so we need to understand it
    > while we have a chance.
    > Below is the commit in question. Avi, any ideas what makes KVM special
    > here? Perhaps its use of "preempt notifiers" is causing a problem somehow?

    preempt notifiers use should cause additional context switch costs of a
    few thousand cycles and possible an IPI (if a vcpu was migrated). So
    I'd suspect scheduling latency here.

    Is it possible to trace this (the time between a wake up and actual
    scheduling of a task)?

    error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-18 09:33    [W:0.021 / U:49.884 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site