[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [tip:sched/urgent] nohz/full, sched/rt: Fix missed tick-reenabling bug in sched_can_stop_tick()
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 03:24:43AM -0700, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Commit-ID: 2548d546d40c0014efdde88a53bf7896e917dcce
> Gitweb:
> Author: Peter Zijlstra <>
> AuthorDate: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 18:03:15 +0200
> Committer: Ingo Molnar <>
> CommitDate: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:28:55 +0200
> nohz/full, sched/rt: Fix missed tick-reenabling bug in sched_can_stop_tick()
> Chris Metcalf reported a that sched_can_stop_tick() sometimes fails to
> re-enable the tick.
> His observed problem is that rq->cfs.nr_running can be 1 even though
> there are multiple runnable CFS tasks. This happens in the cgroup
> case, in which case cfs.nr_running is the number of runnable entities
> for that level.
> If there is a single runnable cgroup (which can have an arbitrary
> number of runnable child entries itself) rq->cfs.nr_running will be 1.
> However, looking at that function I think there's more problems with it.
> It seems to assume that if there's FIFO tasks, those will run. This is
> incorrect. The FIFO task can have a lower prio than an RR task, in which
> case the RR task will run.
> So the whole fifo_nr_running test seems misplaced, it should go after
> the rr_nr_running tests. That is, only if !rr_nr_running, can we use
> fifo_nr_running like this.

Thanks for this patch. I indeed made confusions around SCHED_RR and SCHED_FIFO priorities.

Too late for me to ACK but I would have. Thanks!

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-28 15:41    [W:0.087 / U:5.744 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site