[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1346944049.1680.23.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:07:29 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, sbw@....edu, patches@...aro.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/15] rcu: Avoid spurious RCU CPU stall
warnings
On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 16:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 11:56 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > If a given CPU avoids the idle loop but also avoids starting a new
> > RCU grace period for a full minute, RCU can issue spurious RCU CPU
> > stall warnings. This commit fixes this issue by adding a check for
> > ongoing grace period to avoid these spurious stall warnings.
>
> How would it avoid starting a new period for over a minute? fqs should
> happen, right? And holding rcu_read_lock() for over a minute surely is a
> bug.
I can see this happening in test cases, but it would seem weird on a
normal system. That is, for preempt rcu, having a process scheduled out
holding an rcu_read_lock() for over a minute could happen on a really
stressed out system. But for such a case, I don't think a warning is out
of question.
-- Steve
--
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