[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZqjAVDBBdYSxbdPO@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 03:28:36 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, leit@...a.com,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Adrian Huang <ahuang12@...ovo.com>,
"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/apic: Add retry mechanism to add_pin_to_irq_node()
Hello Thomas,
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 07:44:09PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> I'm absolutely not convinced by this loop heuristic. That's just a bad
> >> hack.
> >
> > I will not disagree with you here, but I need to use this patch in order
> > to be able t keep the system not panicking and stable while fault
> > injecting slab errors and trying to reproduce a real bug in the network
> > stack.
>
> Something like the untested below should just work.
Thanks. I've tested in a Skylake machine and I haven't see the crash
running the same test for more than 2 hours.
Feel free to add the following, in case you submit it:
Tested-by: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
This is the machine details, if it is useful.
CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) D-2191A CPU @ 1.60GHz
PIC: Intel Corporation Sky Lake-E IOAPIC
> Thanks,
Thank you!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists