Hello,
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:08:00AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> [0.165669] Performance Events: unsupported Netburst CPU model 6 no PMU
> driver, software events only.
> [0.167001] XXX cpu=0 gcwq=88000dc0cfc0 base=88000dc11e80
> [0.167989] XXX cpu=0 nr_running=0 @ 88
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
> Still hasn't come back in three reboots. I have to leave now, can continue
> tomorrow.
Tired of rebooting ... seems that it is very hard to hit this with
this patch :-(
-Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-k
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> The debug patch didn't do anything for the bug itself. I suppose it's
> timing dependent and doesn't always happen (it never reproduces here
> for some reason). Can you please repeat several times and see whether
> the warning can be triggered?
Hello, Tony.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 04:24:47PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Can you please try the following debug patch instead? Yours is
> > different from Fengguang's.
>
> New dmesg from mext-20120712 + this new patch (instead of previous o
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Can you please try the following debug patch instead? Yours is
> different from Fengguang's.
New dmesg from mext-20120712 + this new patch (instead of previous one)
[Note - I see some XXX traces, but no WARN_ON stack dump this time]
-Tony
Lin
Hello, Tony.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 03:16:30PM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > I was wrong and am now dazed and confused. That's from
> > init_workqueues() where only cpu0 is running. How the hell did
> > nr_running manage to become non-zero at t
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I was wrong and am now dazed and confused. That's from
> init_workqueues() where only cpu0 is running. How the hell did
> nr_running manage to become non-zero at that point? Can you please
> apply the following patch and report the boot log?
Hello, again.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:05:19AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 09:06:48PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > [0.207977] WARNING: at /c/kernel-tests/mm/kernel/workqueue.c:1217
> > worker_enter_idle+0x2b8/0x32b()
> > [0.207977] Modules linked in:
> > [0.2
Hello, Fengguang.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 09:06:48PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> [0.207977] WARNING: at /c/kernel-tests/mm/kernel/workqueue.c:1217
> worker_enter_idle+0x2b8/0x32b()
> [0.207977] Modules linked in:
> [0.207977] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.5.0-rc6-08414-g9645f
WQ_HIGHPRI was implemented by queueing highpri work items at the head
of the global worklist. Other than queueing at the head, they weren't
handled differently; unfortunately, this could lead to execution
latency of a few seconds on heavily loaded systems.
Now that workqueue code has been updated
10 matches
Mail list logo
