>>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:15 AM, in message <20080630131511.GA7506@elte.hu>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
I may have found the issue: It looks like the hunk that initially disables interrupts in load_balance_newidle() was inadvertently applied to load_balance() instead during the
merge to linux-tip. If you fold the following patch into my original patch, it should set
things right again.
-----
sched: fix merge problem with newidle enhancement patch
From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
commit cc8160c56843201891766660e3816d2e546c1b17 introduces a locking
enhancement for newidle. However, one hunk misapplied to load_balance
instead of load_balance_newidle. This fixes the issue.
Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
---
kernel/sched.c | 18 +++++++++---------
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index f35d73c..f36406f 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -3459,15 +3459,6 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
cpus_setall(*cpus);
- schedstat_inc(sd, lb_count[CPU_NEWLY_IDLE]);
-
- /*
- * We are in a preempt-disabled section, so dropping the lock/irq
- * here simply means that other cores may acquire the lock,
- * and interrupts may occur.
- */
- spin_unlock_irq(&this_rq->lock);
-
/*
* When power savings policy is enabled for the parent domain, idle
* sibling can pick up load irrespective of busy siblings. In this case,
@@ -3630,6 +3621,15 @@ load_balance_newidle(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq, struct sched_domain *sd,
cpus_setall(*cpus);
+ schedstat_inc(sd, lb_count[CPU_NEWLY_IDLE]);
+
+ /*
+ * We are in a preempt-disabled section, so dropping the lock/irq
+ * here simply means that other cores may acquire the lock,
+ * and interrupts may occur.
+ */
+ spin_unlock_irq(&this_rq->lock);
+
/*
* When power savings policy is enabled for the parent domain, idle
* sibling can pick up load irrespective of busy siblings. In this case,
--
