[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51D6F729.8030101@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 09:41:13 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>
Subject: Re: Yet more softlockups.
On 07/05/2013 09:02 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 05:15:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Dave Jones wrote:
>> >
>> > > BUG: soft lockup - CPU#3 stuck for 23s! [trinity-child1:14565]
>> > > perf samples too long (2519 > 2500), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 50000
>> > > INFO: NMI handler (perf_event_nmi_handler) took too long to run: 238147.002 msecs
>> >
>> > So we see a softlockup of 23 seconds and the perf_event_nmi_handler
>> > claims it did run 23.8 seconds.
>> >
>> > Are there more instances of NMI handler messages ?
>>
>> [ 2552.006181] perf samples too long (2511 > 2500), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 50000
>> [ 2552.008680] INFO: NMI handler (perf_event_nmi_handler) took too long to run: 500392.002 msecs
>
> Yuck. Spending 50 seconds in NMI context surely explains a softlockup :)
>
Hmmm... this makes me wonder if the interrupt tracepoint stuff is at
fault here, as it changes the IDT handling for NMI context.
-hpa
--
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