[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1329297944.2293.36.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:25:44 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Steven Noonan <steven@...inklabs.net>
Cc: Ben Guthro <ben@...hro.net>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: Re: bisected: 'perf top' causing soft lockups under Xen
On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 00:57 -0800, Steven Noonan wrote:
> It seems to me that there are two options for fixing this, but I'm
> probably lacking the necessary context (or experience with Xen). Either:
>
> - The patch provided by Ben needs to have additional work to specially
> handle IRQ_WORK_VECTOR, since it seems to be a special case where
> there's no event channel attached for it. Perhaps adding an event
> channel for this is the fix? Seems high-overhead, but I lack a good
> understanding of how interrupts are handled in Xen.
So that's a self-IPI, is Xen failing to implement this?
> or
>
> - Perf needs to be "enlightened" about Xen and avoid sending an IPI in
> the first place.
Uhm, no. If anything Xen should simply not implement
arch_irq_work_raise(). The callbacks are then ran from the timer
interrupt.
--
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