On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 12:53:28PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:46:37PM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Daniel Vacek wrote: > > > > > > > I believe Daniel's patches are the best thing we can do in current > > > > situation as the behavior now seems rather buggy and does not provide above > > > > mentioned expectations set when rt throttling was merged with default > > > > budget of 95% of CPU time. Nor if you configure so that it does (by > > > > disabling RT_RUNTIME_SHARE), it also forces CPUs to go idle needlessly when > > > > there still can be rt task running not really starving anyone. At least > > > > till a proper rework of rt scheduling with DL Server is implemented. > > > > > > This looks like a fix for a bug and the company I work for is suffering > > > as a result. Could we please merge that ASAP? > > > > > > > What bug? And no, the patch has as many technical issues as it has > > conceptual ones. > > There is a deadlock, Peter!!! Describe please? Also, have you tried disabling RT_RUNTIME_SHARE ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
