[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120824145247.GB2472@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:52:47 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: sedat.dilek@...il.com, Paul McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [next-20120823] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 200 on s/r
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 09:26:08AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 12:04 +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>
> > Jack Winter confirmed to see similiar NOHZ messages also on
> > v3.4.9-rt17 kernel (CPU: Core2Duo when no suspend performed):
> >
> > [15223.171585] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 08
>
> These can be caused by blocking while holding local_softirq_lock.
>
> Even with per softirq threads, and then (yet more overhead) splitting
> the lock to make sure one softirq type can't block another, _and_ only
> griping if the lock for the pending softirq is _not_ held, seems the
> little bugger can still be triggered very rarely by syn flood induced
> handler bail/raise. Annoying little gripe :)
Hmmm... Now that you mention it, if I understand correctly, the
conversion of spinlocks to sleeplocks in -rt would seem to invalidate
this particular diagnostic completely.
So, what am I missing?
Thanx, Paul
--
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