Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

[Mike Galbraith]

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

--
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/