On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 05:41:52PM +0200, Valentin Schneider wrote: > On 27/08/24 12:03, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > On 26/08/24 09:31, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 01:44:35PM +0200, Valentin Schneider wrote: > >>> > >>> Woops... > >> > >> On the other hand, removing that dequeue_task() makes next-20240823 > >> pass light testing. > >> > >> I have to ask... > >> > >> Does it make sense for Valentin to rearrange those commits to fix > >> the two build bugs and remove that dequeue_task(), all in the name of > >> bisectability. Or is there something subtle here so that only Peter > >> can do this work, shoulder and all? > >> > > > > I suppose at the very least another pair of eyes on this can't hurt, let me > > get untangled from some other things first and I'll take a jab at it. > > I've taken tip/sched/core and shuffled hunks around; I didn't re-order any > commit. I've also taken out the dequeue from switched_from_fair() and put > it at the very top of the branch which should hopefully help bisection. > > The final delta between that branch and tip/sched/core is empty, so it > really is just shuffling inbetween commits. > > Please find the branch at: > > https://gitlab.com/vschneid/linux.git -b mainline/sched/eevdf-complete-builderr > > I'll go stare at the BUG itself now. Thank you! I have fired up tests on the "BROKEN?" commit. If that fails, I will try its predecessor, and if that fails, I wlll bisect from e28b5f8bda01 ("sched/fair: Assert {set_next,put_prev}_entity() are properly balanced"), which has stood up to heavy hammering in earlier testing. Thanx, Paul
