FAILED: patch "[PATCH] sched/fair: Fix unthrottle_cfs_rq() for leaf_cfs_rq list" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree
The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 39f23ce07b9355d05a64ae303ce20d1c4b92b957 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vincent Guittot vincent.guittot@linaro.org Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 15:55:28 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix unthrottle_cfs_rq() for leaf_cfs_rq list
Although not exactly identical, unthrottle_cfs_rq() and enqueue_task_fair() are quite close and follow the same sequence for enqueuing an entity in the cfs hierarchy. Modify unthrottle_cfs_rq() to use the same pattern as enqueue_task_fair(). This fixes a problem already faced with the latter and add an optimization in the last for_each_sched_entity loop.
Fixes: fe61468b2cb (sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning) Reported-by Tao Zhou zohooouoto@zoho.com.cn Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guittot@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org Reviewed-by: Phil Auld pauld@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Ben Segall bsegall@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200513135528.4742-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index c6d57c334d51..538ba5d94e99 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @@ -4774,7 +4774,6 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) struct rq *rq = rq_of(cfs_rq); struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b = tg_cfs_bandwidth(cfs_rq->tg); struct sched_entity *se; - int enqueue = 1; long task_delta, idle_task_delta;
se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu_of(rq)]; @@ -4798,26 +4797,44 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) idle_task_delta = cfs_rq->idle_h_nr_running; for_each_sched_entity(se) { if (se->on_rq) - enqueue = 0; + break; + cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se); + enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se, ENQUEUE_WAKEUP);
+ cfs_rq->h_nr_running += task_delta; + cfs_rq->idle_h_nr_running += idle_task_delta; + + /* end evaluation on encountering a throttled cfs_rq */ + if (cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq)) + goto unthrottle_throttle; + } + + for_each_sched_entity(se) { cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se); - if (enqueue) { - enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se, ENQUEUE_WAKEUP); - } else { - update_load_avg(cfs_rq, se, 0); - se_update_runnable(se); - } + + update_load_avg(cfs_rq, se, UPDATE_TG); + se_update_runnable(se);
cfs_rq->h_nr_running += task_delta; cfs_rq->idle_h_nr_running += idle_task_delta;
+ + /* end evaluation on encountering a throttled cfs_rq */ if (cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq)) - break; + goto unthrottle_throttle; + + /* + * One parent has been throttled and cfs_rq removed from the + * list. Add it back to not break the leaf list. + */ + if (throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq)) + list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq); }
- if (!se) - add_nr_running(rq, task_delta); + /* At this point se is NULL and we are at root level*/ + add_nr_running(rq, task_delta);
+unthrottle_throttle: /* * The cfs_rq_throttled() breaks in the above iteration can result in * incomplete leaf list maintenance, resulting in triggering the @@ -4826,7 +4843,8 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) for_each_sched_entity(se) { cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
- list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq); + if (list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq)) + break; }
assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(rq);
Le lundi 25 mai 2020 à 16:42:49 (+0200), gregkh@linuxfoundation.org a écrit :
The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
This patch needs commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") to be applied first. But then, it will not apply. The backport is :
[ Upstream commit 39f23ce07b9355d05a64ae303ce20d1c4b92b957 upstream ]
Although not exactly identical, unthrottle_cfs_rq() and enqueue_task_fair() are quite close and follow the same sequence for enqueuing an entity in the cfs hierarchy. Modify unthrottle_cfs_rq() to use the same pattern as enqueue_task_fair(). This fixes a problem already faced with the latter and add an optimization in the last for_each_sched_entity loop.
Fixes: fe61468b2cb (sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning) Reported-by Tao Zhou zohooouoto@zoho.com.cn Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guittot@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org Reviewed-by: Phil Auld pauld@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Ben Segall bsegall@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200513135528.4742-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org --- kernel/sched/fair.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index 193b6ab74d7f..36e3bb990845 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @@ -4560,7 +4560,6 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) struct rq *rq = rq_of(cfs_rq); struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b = tg_cfs_bandwidth(cfs_rq->tg); struct sched_entity *se; - int enqueue = 1; long task_delta, idle_task_delta;
se = cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu_of(rq)]; @@ -4584,21 +4583,41 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) idle_task_delta = cfs_rq->idle_h_nr_running; for_each_sched_entity(se) { if (se->on_rq) - enqueue = 0; + break; + cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se); + enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se, ENQUEUE_WAKEUP); + + cfs_rq->h_nr_running += task_delta; + cfs_rq->idle_h_nr_running += idle_task_delta;
+ /* end evaluation on encountering a throttled cfs_rq */ + if (cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq)) + goto unthrottle_throttle; + } + + for_each_sched_entity(se) { cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se); - if (enqueue) - enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se, ENQUEUE_WAKEUP); + cfs_rq->h_nr_running += task_delta; cfs_rq->idle_h_nr_running += idle_task_delta;
+ + /* end evaluation on encountering a throttled cfs_rq */ if (cfs_rq_throttled(cfs_rq)) - break; + goto unthrottle_throttle; + + /* + * One parent has been throttled and cfs_rq removed from the + * list. Add it back to not break the leaf list. + */ + if (throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq)) + list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq); }
- if (!se) - add_nr_running(rq, task_delta); + /* At this point se is NULL and we are at root level*/ + add_nr_running(rq, task_delta);
+unthrottle_throttle: /* * The cfs_rq_throttled() breaks in the above iteration can result in * incomplete leaf list maintenance, resulting in triggering the @@ -4607,7 +4626,8 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) for_each_sched_entity(se) { cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
- list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq); + if (list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq)) + break; }
assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(rq); -- 2.17.1
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 07:27:09PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le lundi 25 mai 2020 à 16:42:49 (+0200), gregkh@linuxfoundation.org a écrit :
The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
This patch needs commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") to be applied first. But then, it will not apply. The backport is :
[ Upstream commit 39f23ce07b9355d05a64ae303ce20d1c4b92b957 upstream ]
Although not exactly identical, unthrottle_cfs_rq() and enqueue_task_fair() are quite close and follow the same sequence for enqueuing an entity in the cfs hierarchy. Modify unthrottle_cfs_rq() to use the same pattern as enqueue_task_fair(). This fixes a problem already faced with the latter and add an optimization in the last for_each_sched_entity loop.
Fixes: fe61468b2cb (sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning) Reported-by Tao Zhou zohooouoto@zoho.com.cn Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guittot@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org Reviewed-by: Phil Auld pauld@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Ben Segall bsegall@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200513135528.4742-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Peter, could you review/ack the backport please? It's very different from the upstream version.
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 07:27:09PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le lundi 25 mai 2020 à 16:42:49 (+0200), gregkh@linuxfoundation.org a écrit :
The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
This patch needs commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") to be applied first. But then, it will not apply. The backport is :
[ Upstream commit 39f23ce07b9355d05a64ae303ce20d1c4b92b957 upstream ]
Although not exactly identical, unthrottle_cfs_rq() and enqueue_task_fair() are quite close and follow the same sequence for enqueuing an entity in the cfs hierarchy. Modify unthrottle_cfs_rq() to use the same pattern as enqueue_task_fair(). This fixes a problem already faced with the latter and add an optimization in the last for_each_sched_entity loop.
Fixes: fe61468b2cb (sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning) Reported-by Tao Zhou zohooouoto@zoho.com.cn Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guittot@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org Reviewed-by: Phil Auld pauld@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Ben Segall bsegall@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200513135528.4742-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
kernel/sched/fair.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
This patch doesn't apply to the 5.4.y tree at all. Can someone please provide a working backport?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 10:56, Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 07:27:09PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le lundi 25 mai 2020 à 16:42:49 (+0200), gregkh@linuxfoundation.org a écrit :
The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
This patch needs commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") to be applied first. But then, it will not apply. The backport is :
[ Upstream commit 39f23ce07b9355d05a64ae303ce20d1c4b92b957 upstream ]
Although not exactly identical, unthrottle_cfs_rq() and enqueue_task_fair() are quite close and follow the same sequence for enqueuing an entity in the cfs hierarchy. Modify unthrottle_cfs_rq() to use the same pattern as enqueue_task_fair(). This fixes a problem already faced with the latter and add an optimization in the last for_each_sched_entity loop.
Fixes: fe61468b2cb (sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning) Reported-by Tao Zhou zohooouoto@zoho.com.cn Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guittot@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org Reviewed-by: Phil Auld pauld@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Ben Segall bsegall@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200513135528.4742-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
kernel/sched/fair.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
This patch doesn't apply to the 5.4.y tree at all. Can someone please provide a working backport?
It seems that commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") has already been applied back in May. But then, I'm able to apply this patch on top of v5.4.y/v5.4.81
Thanks
thanks,
greg k-h
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 12:25:12PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 10:56, Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 07:27:09PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le lundi 25 mai 2020 à 16:42:49 (+0200), gregkh@linuxfoundation.org a écrit :
The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
This patch needs commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") to be applied first. But then, it will not apply. The backport is :
[ Upstream commit 39f23ce07b9355d05a64ae303ce20d1c4b92b957 upstream ]
Although not exactly identical, unthrottle_cfs_rq() and enqueue_task_fair() are quite close and follow the same sequence for enqueuing an entity in the cfs hierarchy. Modify unthrottle_cfs_rq() to use the same pattern as enqueue_task_fair(). This fixes a problem already faced with the latter and add an optimization in the last for_each_sched_entity loop.
Fixes: fe61468b2cb (sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning) Reported-by Tao Zhou zohooouoto@zoho.com.cn Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guittot@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org Reviewed-by: Phil Auld pauld@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Ben Segall bsegall@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200513135528.4742-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
kernel/sched/fair.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
This patch doesn't apply to the 5.4.y tree at all. Can someone please provide a working backport?
It seems that commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") has already been applied back in May. But then, I'm able to apply this patch on top of v5.4.y/v5.4.81
What is "this patch" here? I tried to apply 39f23ce07b93 ("sched/fair: Fix unthrottle_cfs_rq() for leaf_cfs_rq list") directly to the 5.4 tree and it too did not apply.
confused,
greg k-h
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:47, Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 12:25:12PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 10:56, Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 07:27:09PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le lundi 25 mai 2020 à 16:42:49 (+0200), gregkh@linuxfoundation.org a écrit :
The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
This patch needs commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") to be applied first. But then, it will not apply. The backport is :
[ Upstream commit 39f23ce07b9355d05a64ae303ce20d1c4b92b957 upstream ]
Although not exactly identical, unthrottle_cfs_rq() and enqueue_task_fair() are quite close and follow the same sequence for enqueuing an entity in the cfs hierarchy. Modify unthrottle_cfs_rq() to use the same pattern as enqueue_task_fair(). This fixes a problem already faced with the latter and add an optimization in the last for_each_sched_entity loop.
Fixes: fe61468b2cb (sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning) Reported-by Tao Zhou zohooouoto@zoho.com.cn Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guittot@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org Reviewed-by: Phil Auld pauld@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Ben Segall bsegall@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200513135528.4742-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
kernel/sched/fair.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
This patch doesn't apply to the 5.4.y tree at all. Can someone please provide a working backport?
It seems that commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") has already been applied back in May. But then, I'm able to apply this patch on top of v5.4.y/v5.4.81
What is "this patch" here? I tried to apply 39f23ce07b93 ("sched/fair: Fix unthrottle_cfs_rq() for leaf_cfs_rq list") directly to the 5.4 tree and it too did not apply.
commit 39f23ce07b93 ("sched/fair: Fix unthrottle_cfs_rq() for leaf_cfs_rq list") can't apply because there are several changes which are not fixes which have been applied since v5.4 on the same code.
This patch is the backport on v5.4 of the commit 39f23ce07b93
confused,
greg k-h
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 12:54:57PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:47, Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 12:25:12PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 10:56, Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 07:27:09PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le lundi 25 mai 2020 à 16:42:49 (+0200), gregkh@linuxfoundation.org a écrit :
The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
This patch needs commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") to be applied first. But then, it will not apply. The backport is :
[ Upstream commit 39f23ce07b9355d05a64ae303ce20d1c4b92b957 upstream ]
Although not exactly identical, unthrottle_cfs_rq() and enqueue_task_fair() are quite close and follow the same sequence for enqueuing an entity in the cfs hierarchy. Modify unthrottle_cfs_rq() to use the same pattern as enqueue_task_fair(). This fixes a problem already faced with the latter and add an optimization in the last for_each_sched_entity loop.
Fixes: fe61468b2cb (sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning) Reported-by Tao Zhou zohooouoto@zoho.com.cn Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guittot@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org Reviewed-by: Phil Auld pauld@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Ben Segall bsegall@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200513135528.4742-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
kernel/sched/fair.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
This patch doesn't apply to the 5.4.y tree at all. Can someone please provide a working backport?
It seems that commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") has already been applied back in May. But then, I'm able to apply this patch on top of v5.4.y/v5.4.81
What is "this patch" here? I tried to apply 39f23ce07b93 ("sched/fair: Fix unthrottle_cfs_rq() for leaf_cfs_rq list") directly to the 5.4 tree and it too did not apply.
commit 39f23ce07b93 ("sched/fair: Fix unthrottle_cfs_rq() for leaf_cfs_rq list") can't apply because there are several changes which are not fixes which have been applied since v5.4 on the same code.
This patch is the backport on v5.4 of the commit 39f23ce07b93
What is "this"? I tried to apply the above patch to the 5.4.y tree, and it didn't apply. So I still do not understand what I can do here...
greg k-h
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 13:05, Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 12:54:57PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:47, Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 12:25:12PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 10:56, Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 07:27:09PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le lundi 25 mai 2020 à 16:42:49 (+0200), gregkh@linuxfoundation.org a écrit : > > The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit > id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
This patch needs commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") to be applied first. But then, it will not apply. The backport is :
[ Upstream commit 39f23ce07b9355d05a64ae303ce20d1c4b92b957 upstream ]
Although not exactly identical, unthrottle_cfs_rq() and enqueue_task_fair() are quite close and follow the same sequence for enqueuing an entity in the cfs hierarchy. Modify unthrottle_cfs_rq() to use the same pattern as enqueue_task_fair(). This fixes a problem already faced with the latter and add an optimization in the last for_each_sched_entity loop.
Fixes: fe61468b2cb (sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning) Reported-by Tao Zhou zohooouoto@zoho.com.cn Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guittot@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org Reviewed-by: Phil Auld pauld@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Ben Segall bsegall@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200513135528.4742-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
kernel/sched/fair.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
This patch doesn't apply to the 5.4.y tree at all. Can someone please provide a working backport?
It seems that commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") has already been applied back in May. But then, I'm able to apply this patch on top of v5.4.y/v5.4.81
What is "this patch" here? I tried to apply 39f23ce07b93 ("sched/fair: Fix unthrottle_cfs_rq() for leaf_cfs_rq list") directly to the 5.4 tree and it too did not apply.
commit 39f23ce07b93 ("sched/fair: Fix unthrottle_cfs_rq() for leaf_cfs_rq list") can't apply because there are several changes which are not fixes which have been applied since v5.4 on the same code.
This patch is the backport on v5.4 of the commit 39f23ce07b93
What is "this"? I tried to apply the above patch to the 5.4.y tree, and
I was referring to the email 20200525172709.GB7427@vingu-book
it didn't apply. So I still do not understand what I can do here...
Let me resend it with a clean subject title
greg k-h
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 01:07:09PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 12:54:57PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 12:47, Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 12:25:12PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 at 10:56, Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 07:27:09PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le lundi 25 mai 2020 à 16:42:49 (+0200), gregkh@linuxfoundation.org a écrit : > > The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit > id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
This patch needs commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") to be applied first. But then, it will not apply. The backport is :
[ Upstream commit 39f23ce07b9355d05a64ae303ce20d1c4b92b957 upstream ]
Although not exactly identical, unthrottle_cfs_rq() and enqueue_task_fair() are quite close and follow the same sequence for enqueuing an entity in the cfs hierarchy. Modify unthrottle_cfs_rq() to use the same pattern as enqueue_task_fair(). This fixes a problem already faced with the latter and add an optimization in the last for_each_sched_entity loop.
Fixes: fe61468b2cb (sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair warning) Reported-by Tao Zhou zohooouoto@zoho.com.cn Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guittot@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org Reviewed-by: Phil Auld pauld@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Ben Segall bsegall@google.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200513135528.4742-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
kernel/sched/fair.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
This patch doesn't apply to the 5.4.y tree at all. Can someone please provide a working backport?
It seems that commit b34cb07dde7c ("sched/fair: Fix enqueue_task_fair() warning some more") has already been applied back in May. But then, I'm able to apply this patch on top of v5.4.y/v5.4.81
What is "this patch" here? I tried to apply 39f23ce07b93 ("sched/fair: Fix unthrottle_cfs_rq() for leaf_cfs_rq list") directly to the 5.4 tree and it too did not apply.
commit 39f23ce07b93 ("sched/fair: Fix unthrottle_cfs_rq() for leaf_cfs_rq list") can't apply because there are several changes which are not fixes which have been applied since v5.4 on the same code.
This patch is the backport on v5.4 of the commit 39f23ce07b93
What is "this"? I tried to apply the above patch to the 5.4.y tree, and it didn't apply. So I still do not understand what I can do here...
It's already in our 5.4 tree I've added it there a few days ago :)
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Greg KH -
gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org
-
Sasha Levin -
Vincent Guittot