Re: RFC: revert 43fa5460fe60

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:19:06 -0800
JÃrn Engel <joern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Well, reverting was my first instinct, but for different reasons I think
> it is wrong.  Simply reverting can result in the high priority thread
> moving from one cpu with a running process to a different cpu with a
> running process.  In both cases you may trip over a mole, so nothing
> much is gained.
> 
> But if you know that the destination cpu is idle, you can avoid any
> moles, give or take a small race window maybe.  The moles are still
> present and you still need some debug tool to detect them and fix them
> over time.  But as cpus increase over time, your chances of getting
> lucky in spite of bad kernel code also increase.
> 
> Is that a worthwhile approach, at least for non PREEMPT?

I don't know. Could probably add it if CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set. Just
check if an idle CPU is available in that case and move it, as non
PREEMPT kernels will have long latencies anyway.

-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/