[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130619184218.GB26752@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:42:18 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: frequent softlockups with 3.10rc6.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:13:02AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On a whim, I reverted 971394f389992f8462c4e5ae0e3b49a10a9534a3
> > (As I started seeing these just after that rcu merge).
> >
> > It's only been 30 minutes, but it seems stable again. Normally I would
> > hit these within 5 minutes.
> >
> > I think this may be the same root cause for http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1551503.html too.
>
> In both cases, I am guessing that you built with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY=y.
Yes.
> Even then, this is very strange. I am at a loss as to why udelay(200)
> would result in a hang.
It may not be a real 'hang' per se, but might just be that that process isn't
scheduled within the time needed to appease the lockup detector ?
(20 seconds is a long time, but that box is under constant load when it's
running the fuzz tests, so.. ?)
> Or does your system turn udelay() into something other than a pure spin?
I see no reason why it would. Am I missing something ?
I also don't know if it's related, but it would be real nice if someone
would push along that fix for rcu_preempt hogging the cpu when idle that's
been in timers/urgent for over a month.
Dave
--
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