[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130515162654.GR23604@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:26:54 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nohz: Disable LOCKUP_DETECTOR when NO_HZ_FULL is
enabled
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:27:02AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Coming into the middle of the thread is always hard, but why/how does perf
> > disable nohz_full? I didn't think the hardware events of perf would cause
> > problems as they are no different than an irq. Curious.
>
> Right now perf requires a tick, not sure exactly why, but you can look
> at the code in perf_event_task_tick(). Thus if NO_HZ_FULL sees that a
> perf tick is pending, it won't disable ticks. Unfortunately, the
> watchdogs, both NMI and soft lockup, use the perf infrastructure to
> trigger NMIs or interrupts. This adds a perf element on the rotate list
> and keeps NO_HZ_FULL from *ever* activating.
Ok. Thanks. I don't know what the rotate list is for (nor what it does
in general). But I'll poke around.
Cheers,
Don
--
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