>> Looks like __activate_task() should call nr_running_inc(rq) rather than
>> rq->nr_running++, and the same in wake_up_forked_process(). My guess is
>> that the bogus node_nr_running value is causing some really poor
>> scheduling decisions to be made on NUMA. See if that changes your
>> result.
Yay! that fixes it. Nice catch Rick.
> indeed. The attached patch (against BK-curr) fixes this.
Thanks Ingo ... Linus, could you add that one?
Thanks,
M.
> Ingo
>
> --- kernel/sched.c.orig 2003-03-07 13:40:53.000000000 +0100
> +++ kernel/sched.c 2003-03-07 13:41:19.000000000 +0100
> @@ -325,7 +325,7 @@
> static inline void __activate_task(task_t *p, runqueue_t *rq)
> {
> enqueue_task(p, rq->active);
> - rq->nr_running++;
> + nr_running_inc(rq);
> }
>
> static inline void activate_task(task_t *p, runqueue_t *rq)
> @@ -545,7 +545,7 @@
> list_add_tail(&p->run_list, ¤t->run_list);
> p->array = current->array;
> p->array->nr_active++;
> - rq->nr_running++;
> + nr_running_inc(rq);
> }
> task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
> }
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 22:00:38 EST