Re: [REPORT] cfs-v4 vs sd-0.44

[Ingo Molnar]

* David Lang <david.lang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > (Btw., to protect against such mishaps in the future i have changed 
> > the SysRq-N [SysRq-Nice] implementation in my tree to not only 
> > change real-time tasks to SCHED_OTHER, but to also renice negative 
> > nice levels back to 0 - this will show up in -v6. That way you'd 
> > only have had to hit SysRq-N to get the system out of the wedge.)
> 
> if you are trying to unwedge a system it may be a good idea to renice 
> all tasks to 0, it could be that a task at +19 is holding a lock that 
> something else is waiting for.

Yeah, that's possible too, but +19 tasks are getting a small but 
guaranteed share of the CPU so eventually it ought to release it. It's 
still a possibility, but i think i'll wait for a specific incident to 
happen first, and then react to that incident :-)

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/