[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m262pezhfe.fsf@firstfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:36:21 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: Possible sandybridge livelock issue
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> writes:
>
> When the hang occurred, kswapd basically pegged one core in 100% system
> time. This looks like there's something specific to sandybridge that
> causes this type of bad interaction. I was wondering if it could be
> something to to with a scheduling problem in turbo mode? Once kswapd
> goes flat out, the core its on will kick into turbo mode, which causes
> it to get preferentially scheduled there, leading to the live lock.
Sounds unlikely to me.
Turbo mode does not affect the scheduler and the cores are (reasonably)
independent.
> The only evidence I have to support this theory is that when I reproduce
> the problem with PREEMPT, the core pegs at 100% system time and stays
> there even if I turn off the load. However, if I can execute work that
> causes kswapd to be kicked off the core it's running on, it will calm
> back down and go to sleep.
Turbo mode just makes the CPU faster, but it should not change
the scheduler decisions.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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