...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 10:42 AM
To: Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Cc: pawandeep oza; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malayasen rout
Subject: Re: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 04:16 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
> So Mike, is this reason str
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 04:16 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
> So Mike, is this reason strong enough for you ?
Nope. I think you did the right thing in removing your dependency on
jiffies reliability in a dying box. You don't have to convince me of
anything though, CC timer subsystem
ards,
-Oza
-Original Message-
From: Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 2:17 PM
To: 'Mike Galbraith'
Cc: pawandeep oza; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malayasen rout
Subject: RE: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
Oh ok.
So the reason why I cared was:
There is a c
-Original Message-
From: Mike Galbraith [mailto:umgwanakikb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 2:00 PM
To: Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Cc: pawandeep oza; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malayasen rout
Subject: Re: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 07:05 +
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 07:05 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
> : )
>
> Well, I am not sure, if problem was communicated clearly from my side.
I understood. I just don't understand why you'd care deeply whether
CPU0 halts or eternally waits. Both render it harmless and useless.
-Mike
u == cpu)
Regards,
-Oza
-Original Message-
From: Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 12:36 PM
To: 'Mike Galbraith'
Cc: pawandeep oza; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malayasen rout
Subject: RE: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
: )
Well, I am not sure, if
-Original Message-
From: Mike Galbraith [mailto:umgwanakikb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 12:25 PM
To: Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Cc: pawandeep oza; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malayasen rout
Subject: Re: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 05:58 +
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 05:58 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
> Yes.
> But dying kernel doesn’t mean it CAN NOT INCREMENT jiffies.
> do_timer should do the job until kernel takes its last breathe and more
> precisely CPU0 take its last breathe by halting itself as its last
> instruction.
Feel
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 05:58 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
Yes.
But dying kernel doesn’t mean it CAN NOT INCREMENT jiffies.
do_timer should do the job until kernel takes its last breathe and more
precisely CPU0 take its last breathe by halting itself as its last
instruction.
Feel free
-Original Message-
From: Mike Galbraith [mailto:umgwanakikb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 12:25 PM
To: Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Cc: pawandeep oza; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malayasen rout
Subject: Re: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 05:58 +
-Original Message-
From: Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 12:36 PM
To: 'Mike Galbraith'
Cc: pawandeep oza; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malayasen rout
Subject: RE: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
: )
Well, I am not sure, if problem was communicated clearly
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 07:05 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
: )
Well, I am not sure, if problem was communicated clearly from my side.
I understood. I just don't understand why you'd care deeply whether
CPU0 halts or eternally waits. Both render it harmless and useless.
-Mike
--
-Original Message-
From: Mike Galbraith [mailto:umgwanakikb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 2:00 PM
To: Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Cc: pawandeep oza; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malayasen rout
Subject: Re: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 07:05 +
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 04:16 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
So Mike, is this reason strong enough for you ?
Nope. I think you did the right thing in removing your dependency on
jiffies reliability in a dying box. You don't have to convince me of
anything though, CC timer subsystem
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 10:42 AM
To: Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Cc: pawandeep oza; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malayasen rout
Subject: Re: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 04:16 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
So Mike, is this reason strong
-Original Message-
From: Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 2:17 PM
To: 'Mike Galbraith'
Cc: pawandeep oza; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malayasen rout
Subject: RE: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
Oh ok.
So the reason why I cared was:
There is a code in our
[mailto:umgwanakikb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 11:25 AM
To: Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Cc: pawandeep oza; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malayasen rout
Subject: Re: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 05:12 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
> But after Cr
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 05:12 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
> But after Crash, jiffies do not increment.
Your kernel said "I'M DEAD", that's a good reason to believe it.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 04:37 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
> Problem Statement: the timkeeping is stopped, do_timer is no more a
> job of cpu0.
>
> The reason: the variable "tick_do_timer_cpu" is not set to correct CPU
> (cpu0)
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 04:37 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
> Problem Statement: the timkeeping is stopped, do_timer is no more a
> job of cpu0.
>
> The reason: the variable "tick_do_timer_cpu" is not set to correct CPU
> (cpu0)
> And when BUG() happens, the tick_do_timer_cpu variable stay set
-
From: Mike Galbraith [mailto:umgwanakikb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 8:53 AM
To: pawandeep oza
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malayasen rout; Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Subject: Re: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 22:57 +0530, pawandeep
On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 22:57 +0530, pawandeep oza wrote:
> but when say core0 has raised BUG..
...
> what is the right way to approach this problem
Look at the spot BUG() printed? BUG() means "Way to go slick, the code
you fed me (file:line) is toxic. Have a nice day, your ex-buddy core0".
Hi,
Linux version 3.10.17
Problem Statement: The timekeeping/do_timer seems to be stopped and
the core (in this case it is core0) which is aborting is stuck in the
loop which relies on jiffies.
The root cause/Reason:
we have tickless kernel, so cpu goes to deep idle state, and stop
sched
Hi,
Linux version 3.10.17
Problem Statement: The timekeeping/do_timer seems to be stopped and
the core (in this case it is core0) which is aborting is stuck in the
loop which relies on jiffies.
The root cause/Reason:
we have tickless kernel, so cpu goes to deep idle state, and stop
sched
On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 22:57 +0530, pawandeep oza wrote:
but when say core0 has raised BUG..
...
what is the right way to approach this problem
Look at the spot BUG() printed? BUG() means Way to go slick, the code
you fed me (file:line) is toxic. Have a nice day, your ex-buddy core0.
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 04:37 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
Problem Statement: the timkeeping is stopped, do_timer is no more a
job of cpu0.
The reason: the variable tick_do_timer_cpu is not set to correct CPU
(cpu0)
And when BUG() happens, the tick_do_timer_cpu variable stay set to 1,
2
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 05:12 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
But after Crash, jiffies do not increment.
Your kernel said I'M DEAD, that's a good reason to believe it.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
[mailto:umgwanakikb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 11:25 AM
To: Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Cc: pawandeep oza; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malayasen rout
Subject: Re: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 05:12 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
But after Crash
] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 04:37 +, Oza (Pawandeep) Oza wrote:
Problem Statement: the timkeeping is stopped, do_timer is no more a
job of cpu0.
The reason: the variable tick_do_timer_cpu is not set to correct CPU
(cpu0)
And when BUG() happens
Galbraith [mailto:umgwanakikb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 8:53 AM
To: pawandeep oza
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; malayasen rout; Oza (Pawandeep) Oza
Subject: Re: [KERNEL BUG] do_timer/tick_handover_do_timer 3.10.17
On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 22:57 +0530, pawandeep oza wrote
30 matches
Mail list logo
