[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1208933499.7115.324.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:51:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
guichaz@...oo.fr
Subject: Re: Second soft lockup regression in yesterday's sched.git merge
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 23:39 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> Two changets after the buggy cpu_clock() changes, we have:
>
> commit 15934a37324f32e0fda633dc7984a671ea81cd75
> Author: Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@...oo.fr>
> Date: Sat Apr 19 19:44:57 2008 +0200
>
> sched: fix rq->clock overflows detection with CONFIG_NO_HZ
>
> When using CONFIG_NO_HZ, rq->tick_timestamp is not updated every TICK_NSEC.
> We check that the number of skipped ticks matches the clock jump seen in
> __update_rq_clock().
>
> Signed-off-by: Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@...oo.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
>
> Which also causes softlockup warnings on my Niagara systems.
>
> Note this is with the cpu_clock() change reverted, and the
> usual test case kernel build after a delay:
>
> sleep 10m; time make -j64 >build.log 2>&1; make -j64 image
The effect of this one is that it should properly account idle time in
rq->clock when waking from nohz.
This 'extra' idle time would then propagate through cpu_clock() into the
softlockup code.
Could it be we touch the soft watchdog before we correct all these idle
times?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists