[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55136C2A.60508@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 20:17:14 -0600
From: Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@...com>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 2/4] Revert "timers: do not raise softirq unconditionally"
On 03/22/2015 10:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> Why can't we just Let swapper be the owner when in irq with no dummy?
>>
Thanks Mike for the suggestion. That may also work. Unfortunately
somehow I'm still having a hung problem, which may be related to the
priority of the interrupt handler task.
>> I have "don't raise timer unconditionally" re-applied, the check for a
>> running callback bits of my nohz_full fixlet, and the below on top of
>> that, and all _seems_ well.
>
> But not so well on 64 core box. That has nothing to do with hacklet
> though, re-applying timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch
> without thta hangs the 64 core box during boot with no help from me
> other than to patchlet to let nohz work at all, seems there's another
> issue lurking there. Hohum. Without 'don't raise..", big box is fine.
>
If you get your patch to work, I could try my test that was able to
reproduce the problem consistently.
Thanks,
Mak.
> -Mike
>
--
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