|Summary:||SCHED_FIFO spec violation|
|Product:||Red Hat Enterprise MRG||Reporter:||IBM Bug Proxy <bugproxy>|
|Component:||realtime-kernel||Assignee:||Peter Zijlstra <pzijlstr>|
|Status:||CLOSED ERRATA||QA Contact:|
|Version:||beta||CC:||bhu, davids, lwang, williams|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2008-10-07 19:21:34 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description IBM Bug Proxy 2008-07-07 12:08:21 UTC
=Comment: #0================================================= Darren V. Hart <firstname.lastname@example.org> - 2008-07-03 13:10 EDT According to the SUS, when a SCHED_FIFO task's priority is lowered, it should be added to the head of the corresponding priority array: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_08.html#tag_02_08_04_01 Peter Z. noticed this and wrote a patch to address it: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/16/344 The dequeue_rt_stack() apparently still needs some work according to peterz comments. =Comment: #2================================================= Darren V. Hart <email@example.com> - 2008-07-03 13:22 EDT The enqueue_task changed in 2.6.25, so a backport will be required. It's a simple patch, so that shouldn't pose a problem. =Comment: #3================================================= Darren V. Hart <firstname.lastname@example.org> - 2008-07-03 15:01 EDT I've backported the patch and have an R2 patch ready. Currently under test on elm3b172 running release-testing.sh. =Comment: #4================================================= Darren V. Hart <email@example.com> - 2008-07-03 18:27 EDT [PATCH] Enqueue deprioritized RT tasks to head of prio array The attached patch is currently undergoing release-testing.
Comment 1 IBM Bug Proxy 2008-07-07 12:08:24 UTC
Created attachment 311140 [details] [PATCH] Enqueue deprioritized RT tasks to head of prio array
Comment 2 Clark Williams 2008-08-20 13:46:33 UTC
Are we good with this one?
Comment 3 IBM Bug Proxy 2008-08-20 17:00:53 UTC
(In reply to comment #11) > ------- Comment From firstname.lastname@example.org 2008-08-20 09:46:33 EDT------- > Are we good with this one? Yup.
Comment 5 David Sommerseth 2008-10-06 16:38:27 UTC
Verified by code review
Comment 7 errata-xmlrpc 2008-10-07 19:21:34 UTC
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2008-0857.html