From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: "Niklas Söderlund" <niklas.soderlund@ragnatech.se>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Potential problem with 31e77c93e432dec7 ("sched/fair: Update blocked load when newly idle")
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:54:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180423095420.GA23995@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180422221827.GB27674@bigcity.dyn.berto.se>
Hi Niklas,
Le Monday 23 Apr 2018 � 00:18:27 (+0200), Niklas S�derlund a �crit :
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 2018-04-20 18:00:13 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > You results are similar to Heiner's ones. The problem is still there
> > > even if we only kick ilb which mainly send an IPI reschedule to the
> > > other CPU if Idle
> > >
> >
> > Could it be possible to record some traces of the problem to get a better view
> > of what happens ?
> >
> > I have a small patch that adds some traces in the functions that seems to create
> > the problem
>
> Sure, I applied the patch bellow on-top of c18bb396d3d261eb ("Merge
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net").
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Also that would be good to stop tracing when the RCU stall happens
> >
> > In case you are not familiar with the trace tool, I have put below how to configure ftrace to trace scheudler, irq, timer ... events and stop tracing when dump_backtrace function is called
> >
> > trace-cmd reset > /dev/null
> > trace-cmd start -b 40000 -p function -l dump_backtrace:traceoff -e sched -e cpu_idle -e cpu_frequency -e timer -e ipi -e irq -e printk
> > trace-cmd start -b 40000 -p function -l dump_backtrace
> >
> > The trace-cmd start has to be called twice to make sure that we will not trace all function
> >
> > Once the dump happen and the trace is stopped, you can extract the traces with
> >
> > trace-cmd extract -o <trace file name>
>
> Thanks for the help with trace-cmd, I have attached the full
> trace-cmd.dat extracted from running this. But a quick run of trace-cmd
> report.i
Thanks for the report. Can you re run with the following trace-cmd sequence ? My previous sequence disables ftrace events
trace-cmd reset > /dev/null
trace-cmd start -b 40000 -p function -l dump_backtrace:traceoff -e sched -e cpu_idle -e cpu_frequency -e timer -e ipi -e irq -e printk
trace-cmd start -b 40000 -p function -l dump_backtrace -e sched -e cpu_idle -e cpu_frequency -e timer -e ipi -e irq -e printk
I have updated the patch and added traces to check that scheduler returns from idle_balance function and doesn't stay stuck
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 13 +++++++++++++
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 0951d1c..4285511 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -9606,6 +9606,8 @@ static bool _nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned int flags,
*/
WRITE_ONCE(nohz.has_blocked, 0);
+ trace_printk("_nohz_idle_balance cpu %d idle %d flag %x", this_cpu, idle, flags);
+
/*
* Ensures that if we miss the CPU, we must see the has_blocked
* store from nohz_balance_enter_idle().
@@ -9628,6 +9630,8 @@ static bool _nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned int flags,
rq = cpu_rq(balance_cpu);
+ trace_printk("_nohz_idle_balance update cpu %d ", balance_cpu);
+
has_blocked_load |= update_nohz_stats(rq, true);
/*
@@ -9680,6 +9684,8 @@ static bool _nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned int flags,
if (likely(update_next_balance))
nohz.next_balance = next_balance;
+ trace_printk("_nohz_idle_balance return %d", ret);
+
return ret;
}
@@ -9732,6 +9738,8 @@ static void nohz_newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq)
time_before(jiffies, READ_ONCE(nohz.next_blocked)))
return;
+ trace_printk("nohz_newidle_balance start update");
+
raw_spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
/*
* This CPU is going to be idle and blocked load of idle CPUs
@@ -9742,6 +9750,9 @@ static void nohz_newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq)
if (!_nohz_idle_balance(this_rq, NOHZ_STATS_KICK, CPU_NEWLY_IDLE))
kick_ilb(NOHZ_STATS_KICK);
raw_spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
+
+ trace_printk("nohz_newidle_balance lock back");
+
}
#else /* !CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON */
@@ -9869,6 +9880,8 @@ static int idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
rq_repin_lock(this_rq, rf);
+ trace_printk("idle_balance %d", pulled_task);
+
return pulled_task;
}
--
2.7.4
>
>
[snip]
> rcu_sched-9 [000] 147.342741: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> rcu_sched-9 [000] 147.342749: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 0 idle 2 flag 2
> rcu_sched-9 [000] 147.342754: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> rcu_sched-9 [000] 147.382739: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> rcu_sched-9 [000] 147.382741: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 0 idle 2 flag 2
> rcu_sched-9 [000] 147.382745: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> sshd-1881 [000] 147.621105: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> sshd-1881 [000] 147.621108: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 0 idle 2 flag 2
> sshd-1881 [000] 147.621110: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
This is the last call to the function added by the patch on CPU0 and it returns completely.
But then nothing else is schedule on CPU0
> <idle>-0 [001] 147.662725: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 0 flag 2
> <idle>-0 [001] 147.662730: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 151.032830: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 151.032833: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 151.032835: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 155.032777: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 155.032780: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 155.032781: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> haveged-1823 [001] 155.515789: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> haveged-1823 [001] 155.515792: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> haveged-1823 [001] 155.515794: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 157.032718: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 157.032720: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 157.032722: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 159.032724: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 159.032726: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 159.032728: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 161.032698: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 161.032701: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 161.032702: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 165.032671: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 165.032673: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 165.032675: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 167.032667: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 167.032669: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 167.032671: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 169.032654: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 169.032657: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 169.032658: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> rpcbind-1847 [001] 169.472688: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> rpcbind-1847 [001] 169.472691: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> rpcbind-1847 [001] 169.472693: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 171.032660: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 171.032662: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 171.032664: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> rpcbind-1847 [001] 199.482558: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> rpcbind-1847 [001] 199.482561: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> rpcbind-1847 [001] 199.482563: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> <idle>-0 [000] 241.615152: function: dump_backtrace
>
> --
> Regards,
> Niklas S�derlund
sorry for the inconvenience
Vincent
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: "Niklas Söderlund" <niklas.soderlund@ragnatech.se>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Potential problem with 31e77c93e432dec7 ("sched/fair: Update blocked load when newly idle")
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:54:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180423095420.GA23995@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180422221827.GB27674@bigcity.dyn.berto.se>
Hi Niklas,
Le Monday 23 Apr 2018 à 00:18:27 (+0200), Niklas Söderlund a écrit :
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 2018-04-20 18:00:13 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > >
> > > You results are similar to Heiner's ones. The problem is still there
> > > even if we only kick ilb which mainly send an IPI reschedule to the
> > > other CPU if Idle
> > >
> >
> > Could it be possible to record some traces of the problem to get a better view
> > of what happens ?
> >
> > I have a small patch that adds some traces in the functions that seems to create
> > the problem
>
> Sure, I applied the patch bellow on-top of c18bb396d3d261eb ("Merge
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net").
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Also that would be good to stop tracing when the RCU stall happens
> >
> > In case you are not familiar with the trace tool, I have put below how to configure ftrace to trace scheudler, irq, timer ... events and stop tracing when dump_backtrace function is called
> >
> > trace-cmd reset > /dev/null
> > trace-cmd start -b 40000 -p function -l dump_backtrace:traceoff -e sched -e cpu_idle -e cpu_frequency -e timer -e ipi -e irq -e printk
> > trace-cmd start -b 40000 -p function -l dump_backtrace
> >
> > The trace-cmd start has to be called twice to make sure that we will not trace all function
> >
> > Once the dump happen and the trace is stopped, you can extract the traces with
> >
> > trace-cmd extract -o <trace file name>
>
> Thanks for the help with trace-cmd, I have attached the full
> trace-cmd.dat extracted from running this. But a quick run of trace-cmd
> report.i
Thanks for the report. Can you re run with the following trace-cmd sequence ? My previous sequence disables ftrace events
trace-cmd reset > /dev/null
trace-cmd start -b 40000 -p function -l dump_backtrace:traceoff -e sched -e cpu_idle -e cpu_frequency -e timer -e ipi -e irq -e printk
trace-cmd start -b 40000 -p function -l dump_backtrace -e sched -e cpu_idle -e cpu_frequency -e timer -e ipi -e irq -e printk
I have updated the patch and added traces to check that scheduler returns from idle_balance function and doesn't stay stuck
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 13 +++++++++++++
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 0951d1c..4285511 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -9606,6 +9606,8 @@ static bool _nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned int flags,
*/
WRITE_ONCE(nohz.has_blocked, 0);
+ trace_printk("_nohz_idle_balance cpu %d idle %d flag %x", this_cpu, idle, flags);
+
/*
* Ensures that if we miss the CPU, we must see the has_blocked
* store from nohz_balance_enter_idle().
@@ -9628,6 +9630,8 @@ static bool _nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned int flags,
rq = cpu_rq(balance_cpu);
+ trace_printk("_nohz_idle_balance update cpu %d ", balance_cpu);
+
has_blocked_load |= update_nohz_stats(rq, true);
/*
@@ -9680,6 +9684,8 @@ static bool _nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned int flags,
if (likely(update_next_balance))
nohz.next_balance = next_balance;
+ trace_printk("_nohz_idle_balance return %d", ret);
+
return ret;
}
@@ -9732,6 +9738,8 @@ static void nohz_newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq)
time_before(jiffies, READ_ONCE(nohz.next_blocked)))
return;
+ trace_printk("nohz_newidle_balance start update");
+
raw_spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
/*
* This CPU is going to be idle and blocked load of idle CPUs
@@ -9742,6 +9750,9 @@ static void nohz_newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq)
if (!_nohz_idle_balance(this_rq, NOHZ_STATS_KICK, CPU_NEWLY_IDLE))
kick_ilb(NOHZ_STATS_KICK);
raw_spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
+
+ trace_printk("nohz_newidle_balance lock back");
+
}
#else /* !CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON */
@@ -9869,6 +9880,8 @@ static int idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
rq_repin_lock(this_rq, rf);
+ trace_printk("idle_balance %d", pulled_task);
+
return pulled_task;
}
--
2.7.4
>
>
[snip]
> rcu_sched-9 [000] 147.342741: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> rcu_sched-9 [000] 147.342749: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 0 idle 2 flag 2
> rcu_sched-9 [000] 147.342754: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> rcu_sched-9 [000] 147.382739: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> rcu_sched-9 [000] 147.382741: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 0 idle 2 flag 2
> rcu_sched-9 [000] 147.382745: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> sshd-1881 [000] 147.621105: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> sshd-1881 [000] 147.621108: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 0 idle 2 flag 2
> sshd-1881 [000] 147.621110: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
This is the last call to the function added by the patch on CPU0 and it returns completely.
But then nothing else is schedule on CPU0
> <idle>-0 [001] 147.662725: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 0 flag 2
> <idle>-0 [001] 147.662730: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 151.032830: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 151.032833: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 151.032835: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 155.032777: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 155.032780: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 155.032781: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> haveged-1823 [001] 155.515789: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> haveged-1823 [001] 155.515792: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> haveged-1823 [001] 155.515794: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 157.032718: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 157.032720: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 157.032722: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 159.032724: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 159.032726: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 159.032728: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 161.032698: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 161.032701: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 161.032702: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 165.032671: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 165.032673: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 165.032675: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 167.032667: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 167.032669: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 167.032671: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 169.032654: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 169.032657: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 169.032658: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> rpcbind-1847 [001] 169.472688: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> rpcbind-1847 [001] 169.472691: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> rpcbind-1847 [001] 169.472693: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 171.032660: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 171.032662: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> kworker/1:1-31 [001] 171.032664: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> rpcbind-1847 [001] 199.482558: bputs: pick_next_task_fair: nohz_newidle_balance start update
> rpcbind-1847 [001] 199.482561: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance cpu 1 idle 2 flag 2
> rpcbind-1847 [001] 199.482563: bprint: _nohz_idle_balance: _nohz_idle_balance return 1
> <idle>-0 [000] 241.615152: function: dump_backtrace
>
> --
> Regards,
> Niklas Söderlund
sorry for the inconvenience
Vincent
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-23 9:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-12 9:18 Potential problem with 31e77c93e432dec7 ("sched/fair: Update blocked load when newly idle") Niklas Söderlund
2018-04-12 9:18 ` Niklas Söderlund
2018-04-12 10:33 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-04-12 11:15 ` Niklas Söderlund
2018-04-12 11:15 ` Niklas Söderlund
[not found] ` <20180412133031.GA551@linaro.org>
2018-04-12 19:43 ` Heiner Kallweit
2018-04-14 11:21 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-04-12 22:39 ` Niklas Söderlund
2018-04-12 22:39 ` Niklas Söderlund
2018-04-14 11:24 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-04-20 16:00 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-04-20 16:00 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-04-20 16:30 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-04-22 22:18 ` Niklas Söderlund
2018-04-22 22:18 ` Niklas Söderlund
2018-04-23 9:54 ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2018-04-23 9:54 ` Vincent Guittot
[not found] ` <20180425225603.GA26177@bigcity.dyn.berto.se>
2018-04-26 10:31 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-04-26 10:31 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-04-26 11:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-26 11:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-26 14:41 ` Niklas Söderlund
2018-04-26 14:41 ` Niklas Söderlund
2018-04-26 15:27 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-04-26 15:38 ` Niklas Söderlund
2018-04-26 15:38 ` Niklas Söderlund
2018-05-02 13:40 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-05-03 9:25 ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched/fair: Fix the update of blocked load when newly idle tip-bot for Vincent Guittot
2018-04-13 20:38 ` Potential problem with 31e77c93e432dec7 ("sched/fair: Update blocked load when newly idle") Niklas Söderlund
2018-04-13 20:38 ` Niklas Söderlund
2018-04-14 11:26 ` Vincent Guittot
2018-04-12 22:06 ` Niklas Söderlund
2018-04-12 22:06 ` Niklas Söderlund
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180423095420.GA23995@linaro.org \
--to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=niklas.soderlund@ragnatech.se \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.