[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <FA47D36D6EC9FE4CB463299737C09B9901C14B96@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 06:17:48 +0000
From: "Wang, Xiaoming" <xiaoming.wang@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] lib/spinlock_debug: avoid one thread can not obtain the
spinlock for a long time.
Dear Peter
If we wait the end of loop as loops_per_jiffy.
It may last more than 130s and local IRQ disabled at interval
which may cause Hard LOCKUP. We break out in 1 second and
dump the stack for debug.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:peterz@...radead.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:06 PM
> To: Wang, Xiaoming
> Cc: mingo@...hat.com; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Liu, Chuansheng
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/spinlock_debug: avoid one thread can not obtain
> the spinlock for a long time.
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 01:04:31PM -0400, Wang, Xiaoming wrote:
> > loops_per_jiffy is larger than expectation that possible causes one
> > thread can not obtain the spin lock for a long time.
> > So use cpu_clock() to reach timeout in one second which can avoid
> HARD
> > LOCKUP.
>
> This is just not making sense.. one thing is broken so then you tape on
> another? Fix the first already.
>
> Also, why do you care?
--
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