On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Bruno,
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Bruno PrÃmont wrote:
> >> I need some sleep now, but I will try to come up with sensible
> >> debugging tomorrow unless Paul or someone else beats me to it.
> >
> > can you please add the patch below and provide the /proc/sched_debug
> > output when the problem shows up again?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Â Â Â Âtglx
> >
> > ---
> > Âkernel/sched.c | Â Â3 ---
> > Â1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -642,9 +642,6 @@ static void update_rq_clock(struct rq *r
> > Â{
> > Â Â Â Âs64 delta;
> >
> > - Â Â Â if (rq->skip_clock_update)
> > - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return;
> > -
> > Â Â Â Âdelta = sched_clock_cpu(cpu_of(rq)) - rq->clock;
> > Â Â Â Ârq->clock += delta;
> > Â Â Â Âupdate_rq_clock_task(rq, delta);
>
> Referring to [1]?
>
> - Sedat -
>
> [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/22/35
Kinda, but I suspect there is more wrong with that optimization thing
for yet unknown reasons.
Thanks,
tglx
