[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140822122453.GG16198@grmbl.mre>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 17:54:53 +0530
From: Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, riel@...hat.com, mingo@...nel.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, sbw@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/2] rcu: Parallelize and economize NOCB
kthread wakeups
On (Mon) 18 Aug 2014 [21:01:49], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The odds are low over the next few days. I am adding nastier rcutorture
> testing, however. It would still be very good to get debug information
> from your setup. One approach would be to convert the trace function
> calls into printk(), if that would help.
I added a few printks on the lines of the traces in cases where
rcu_nocb_poll was checked -- since that reproduces the hang. Are the
following traces sufficient, or should I keep adding more printks?
In the case of rcu-trace-nopoll.txt, the messages stop after a while
(when the guest locks up hard). That's when I kill the qemu process.
Amit
View attachment "rcu-trace-nopoll.txt" of type "text/plain" (158712 bytes)
View attachment "rcu-traces-poll.txt" of type "text/plain" (36084 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists