| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140319160933.GA30295@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 21:39:33 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: davidlohr@...com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org Subject: Re: Tasks stuck in futex code (in 3.14-rc6) > > > > Infact I can reproduce this if the java_constraint is either node, socket, system. > > However I am not able to reproduce if java_constraint is set to core. > > What's any of that mean? > Using the constraint, one can specify how many jvm instances should participate in the specjbb run. For example on a 4 node box, I can say 2 jvms per constraint with constraint set to node and specjbb will run with 8 instances of java. I was running with 1 jvm per constraint. But when I set the constraint to node/System, I keep seeing this problem. However if I set the constraint to core (which means running more instances of java), the problem is not seen. I kind of guess, the lesser the number of java instances the easier it is to reproduce. -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju -- 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