Re: CFS review

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx> wrote:

> > It doesn't make much of a difference.
> 
> I thought this was history.  With your config, I was finally able to 
> reproduce the anomaly (only with your proggy though), and Ingo's patch 
> does indeed fix it here.
> 
> Freshly reproduced anomaly and patch verification, running 2.6.23-rc3 
> with your config, both with and without Ingo's patch reverted:
> 
> 6561 root      20   0  1696  492  404 S 32.0  0.0   0:30.83 0 lt
> 6562 root      20   0  1696  336  248 R 32.0  0.0   0:30.79 0 lt
> 6563 root      20   0  1696  336  248 R 32.0  0.0   0:30.80 0 lt
> 6564 root      20   0  2888 1236 1028 R  4.6  0.1   0:05.26 0 sh
> 
> 6507 root      20   0  2888 1236 1028 R 25.8  0.1   0:30.75 0 sh
> 6504 root      20   0  1696  492  404 R 24.4  0.0   0:29.26 0 lt
> 6505 root      20   0  1696  336  248 R 24.4  0.0   0:29.26 0 lt
> 6506 root      20   0  1696  336  248 R 24.4  0.0   0:29.25 0 lt

oh, great! I'm glad we didnt discard this as a pure sched_clock 
resolution artifact.

Roman, a quick & easy request: please send the usual cfs-debug-info.sh 
output captured while your testcase is running. (Preferably try .23-rc3 
or later as Mike did, which has the most recent scheduler code, it 
includes the patch i sent to you already.) I'll reply to your 
sleeper-fairness questions separately, but in any case we need to figure 
out what's happening on your box - if you can still reproduce it with 
.23-rc3. Thanks,

	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/