Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4 | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Tue, 02 Dec 2014 10:47:12 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 08:33 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Looking again at that patch (the commit message still doesn't strike > me as wonderfully explanatory :^) makes me worry, though. > > Is that > > if (rq->skip_clock_update-- > 0) > return; > > really right? If skip_clock_update was zero (normal), it now gets set > to -1, which has its own specific meaning (see "force clock update" > comment in kernel/sched/rt.c). Is that intentional? That seems insane.
Yeah, it was intentional. Least lines.
> Or should it be > > if (rq->skip_clock_update > 0) { > rq->skip_clock_update = 0; > return; > } > > or what? Maybe there was a reason the patch never got applied even to -tip.
Peterz was looking at corner case proofing the thing. Saving those cycles has been entirely too annoying.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/8/295
-Mike
| |