[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:0.106 / U:2.608 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site