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

Ingo Molnar
2007-04-24T07:24:46Z

* David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com> 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