[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130706072408.GA14865@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 09:24:08 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Yet more softlockups.
* Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> 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
Dave, could you pull in the latest perf fixes at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git perf/urgent
In particular this:
e5302920da9e perf: Fix interrupt handler timing harness
could make a difference - if your tests somehow end up activating perf.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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