Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>
To:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WARNING: at net/sched/sch_generic.c:448
In-Reply-To: <20191024204134.egc5mdtz2o2tsxyz@linux-p48b>
References: <20191024032105.xmewznsphltnrido@linux-p48b> <87mudpylcc.fsf@linux.intel.com> <20191024204134.egc5mdtz2o2tsxyz@linux-p48b>
Date:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:26:06 -0700
Message-ID: <875zkcxy0x.fsf@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> writes:

> I am able to trigger this a few seconds into running pi_stress (from
> rt-tests, quite a non network workload). But this is not the only one.
> I'm going through some logs to see what other test is triggering it.

Looking at the at the caveats section of pi_stress(8), this is expected:

"The pi_stress test threads run as SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR threads, which
means that they can starve critical system threads. It is advisable to
change the scheduling policy of critical system threads to be SCHED_FIFO
prior to running pi_stress and use a priority of 10 or higher, to
prevent those threads from being starved by the stress test."

Are the other workloads similar to pi_stress?


Cheers,
--
Vinicius