Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:41:12 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: =?UTF-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel <joern@purestorage.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RFC: revert 43fa5460fe60
Message-ID: <20150224124112.3d4c728c@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20150224171906.GA23307@Sligo.logfs.org>
References: <20150224004340.GC31433@Sligo.logfs.org>
	<20150224103344.5f92a507@gandalf.local.home>
	<20150224171906.GA23307@Sligo.logfs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1228
Lines: 27

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:19:06 -0800
Jörn Engel <joern@purestorage.com> wrote:

> Well, reverting was my first instinct, but for different reasons I think
> it is wrong.  Simply reverting can result in the high priority thread
> moving from one cpu with a running process to a different cpu with a
> running process.  In both cases you may trip over a mole, so nothing
> much is gained.
> 
> But if you know that the destination cpu is idle, you can avoid any
> moles, give or take a small race window maybe.  The moles are still
> present and you still need some debug tool to detect them and fix them
> over time.  But as cpus increase over time, your chances of getting
> lucky in spite of bad kernel code also increase.
> 
> Is that a worthwhile approach, at least for non PREEMPT?

I don't know. Could probably add it if CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set. Just
check if an idle CPU is available in that case and move it, as non
PREEMPT kernels will have long latencies anyway.

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