Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 10:00:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>
Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, efault@gmx.de, tglx@linutronix.de,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, mingo@kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [v4.8-rc1 Regression] sched/fair: Apply more PELT fixes
Message-ID: <20161008080019.GE3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <57F7F9AF.2010609@canonical.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <57F7F9AF.2010609@canonical.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1029
Lines: 29

On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 03:38:23PM -0400, Joseph Salisbury wrote:
> Hello Peter,
> 
> A kernel bug report was opened against Ubuntu [0].  After a kernel
> bisect, it was found that reverting the following commit resolved this bug:
> 
> commit 3d30544f02120b884bba2a9466c87dba980e3be5
> Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Date:   Tue Jun 21 14:27:50 2016 +0200
> 
>     sched/fair: Apply more PELT fixes

That commit doesn't revert cleanly, did you take out more?

> The regression was introduced as of v4.8-rc1.  The bug can be reproduced
> on an X1 Carbon with the following:
> stress -c $your_total_cpu_cores
> 
> I was hoping to get your feedback, since you are the patch author.  Do
> you think gathering any additional data will help diagnose this issue,
> or would it be best to submit a revert request? 

I'll try and have a look asap, but I'm traveling next week so it might a
tad slower than normal.

If you could provide a /proc/sched_debug dump while the thing is running
that'd might be useful.

Thanks!