On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:08:11AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> On 2015/1/22 4:06, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:10:51AM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:26:27AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> This may not cause other problems but what happens if you
On 2015/1/22 4:06, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:10:51AM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:26:27AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
This may not cause other problems but what happens if you comment out the
'touch_softlockup_watchdog' from the
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:10:51AM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:26:27AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> > > This may not cause other problems but what happens if you comment out the
> > > 'touch_softlockup_watchdog' from the touch_nmi_watchdog function like
> > > below (based
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 07:11:51PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> On 2015/1/21 18:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:05:50PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> >> On 2015/1/21 15:02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:54:05PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> On
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:26:27AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> > This may not cause other problems but what happens if you comment out the
> > 'touch_softlockup_watchdog' from the touch_nmi_watchdog function like
> > below (based on latest upstream cb59670870)?
> >
> > The idea is that console
On 2015/1/21 18:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:05:50PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>> On 2015/1/21 15:02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:54:05PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 11:13, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:05:50PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> On 2015/1/21 15:02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:54:05PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> >> On 2015/1/21 11:13, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> >>> On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus
On 2015/1/21 15:02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:54:05PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>> On 2015/1/21 11:13, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>>> On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
>>> Sorry, i made a mistake, the log above is
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 07:11:51PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 18:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:05:50PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 15:02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:54:05PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 11:13,
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:10:51AM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:26:27AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
This may not cause other problems but what happens if you comment out the
'touch_softlockup_watchdog' from the touch_nmi_watchdog function like
below (based on latest
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:08:11AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/22 4:06, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:10:51AM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:26:27AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
This may not cause other problems but what happens if you comment
On 2015/1/22 4:06, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:10:51AM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:26:27AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
This may not cause other problems but what happens if you comment out the
'touch_softlockup_watchdog' from the touch_nmi_watchdog
On 2015/1/21 18:16, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:05:50PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 15:02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:54:05PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 11:13, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 05:05:50PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 15:02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:54:05PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 11:13, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus wrote:
[ . .
On 2015/1/21 15:02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:54:05PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 11:13, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus wrote:
[ . . . ]
Sorry, i made a mistake, the log above is based on v3.10.63.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:26:27AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
This may not cause other problems but what happens if you comment out the
'touch_softlockup_watchdog' from the touch_nmi_watchdog function like
below (based on latest upstream cb59670870)?
The idea is that console printing for
On 2015/1/21 15:02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:54:05PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>> On 2015/1/21 11:13, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>>> On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
>>> Sorry, i made a mistake, the log above is
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:54:05PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> On 2015/1/21 11:13, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> > On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> >> On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > Sorry, i made a mistake, the log above is based on v3.10.63.
> > I have tested the latest
On 2015/1/21 11:13, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>> On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:09:19AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> Of course back then, touch_nmi_watchdog touched all cpus. So a problem
> like this was masked. I
On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:09:19AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>>>
Of course back then, touch_nmi_watchdog touched all cpus. So a problem
like this was masked. I believe this upstream commit 62572e29bc53,
On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:09:19AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>>
>>> Of course back then, touch_nmi_watchdog touched all cpus. So a problem
>>> like this was masked. I believe this upstream commit 62572e29bc53, solved
>>> the problem.
>>
>> Thanks for your
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:09:19AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>
> > Of course back then, touch_nmi_watchdog touched all cpus. So a problem
> > like this was masked. I believe this upstream commit 62572e29bc53, solved
> > the problem.
>
> Thanks for your suggestion.
>
> Commit 62572e29bc53
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:09:19AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
Of course back then, touch_nmi_watchdog touched all cpus. So a problem
like this was masked. I believe this upstream commit 62572e29bc53, solved
the problem.
Thanks for your suggestion.
Commit 62572e29bc53 changed the
On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:09:19AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
Of course back then, touch_nmi_watchdog touched all cpus. So a problem
like this was masked. I believe this upstream commit 62572e29bc53, solved
the problem.
Thanks for your suggestion.
On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:09:19AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
Of course back then, touch_nmi_watchdog touched all cpus. So a problem
like this was masked. I believe this upstream commit 62572e29bc53, solved
the
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:54:05PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 11:13, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus wrote:
[ . . . ]
Sorry, i made a mistake, the log above is based on v3.10.63.
I have tested the latest upstream kernel
On 2015/1/21 11:13, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:09:19AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
Of course back then, touch_nmi_watchdog touched all cpus. So a problem
like this was masked. I believe this upstream
On 2015/1/21 15:02, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:54:05PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 11:13, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/21 10:26, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/20 23:25, Don Zickus wrote:
[ . . . ]
Sorry, i made a mistake, the log above is based on v3.10.63.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:17:01AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> On 2015/1/19 19:09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:04:29PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> >> On 2015/1/19 16:42, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:07:15PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> Hi,
>
On 2015/1/19 19:09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:04:29PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>> On 2015/1/19 16:42, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:07:15PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
Hi,
On my x86_64 qemu virtual machine, RCU CPU stall console spews
On 2015/1/19 22:06, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:04:29PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>>>
>>> Did you really intend to acquire the same spinlock twice in a row,
>>> forcing a self-deadlock? If not, I of course suggest changing the second
>>> "spin_lock()" to "spin_unlock()".
>>>
>>
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:04:29PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> >
> > Did you really intend to acquire the same spinlock twice in a row,
> > forcing a self-deadlock? If not, I of course suggest changing the second
> > "spin_lock()" to "spin_unlock()".
> >
>
> Yes, i acquire the same spinlock
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:04:29PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> On 2015/1/19 16:42, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:07:15PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On my x86_64 qemu virtual machine, RCU CPU stall console spews may
> >> lead to soft lockup disabled.
> >>
>
On 2015/1/19 16:42, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:07:15PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On my x86_64 qemu virtual machine, RCU CPU stall console spews may
>> lead to soft lockup disabled.
>>
>> If softlockup_thresh > rcu_cpu_stall_timeout (softlockup_thresh = 2 *
>>
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:07:15PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On my x86_64 qemu virtual machine, RCU CPU stall console spews may
> lead to soft lockup disabled.
>
> If softlockup_thresh > rcu_cpu_stall_timeout (softlockup_thresh = 2 *
> watchdog_thresh):
>
> / #
> / # busybox cat
Hi,
On my x86_64 qemu virtual machine, RCU CPU stall console spews may
lead to soft lockup disabled.
If softlockup_thresh > rcu_cpu_stall_timeout (softlockup_thresh = 2 *
watchdog_thresh):
/ #
/ # busybox cat /sys/module/rcupdate/parameters/rcu_cpu_stall_timeout
21
/ # echo 60 >
On 2015/1/19 19:09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:04:29PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/19 16:42, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:07:15PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
Hi,
On my x86_64 qemu virtual machine, RCU CPU stall console spews may
lead to soft
On 2015/1/19 22:06, Don Zickus wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:04:29PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
Did you really intend to acquire the same spinlock twice in a row,
forcing a self-deadlock? If not, I of course suggest changing the second
spin_lock() to spin_unlock().
Yes, i acquire the
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:17:01AM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/19 19:09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:04:29PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/19 16:42, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:07:15PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
Hi,
On my x86_64
Hi,
On my x86_64 qemu virtual machine, RCU CPU stall console spews may
lead to soft lockup disabled.
If softlockup_thresh rcu_cpu_stall_timeout (softlockup_thresh = 2 *
watchdog_thresh):
/ #
/ # busybox cat /sys/module/rcupdate/parameters/rcu_cpu_stall_timeout
21
/ # echo 60
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:07:15PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
Hi,
On my x86_64 qemu virtual machine, RCU CPU stall console spews may
lead to soft lockup disabled.
If softlockup_thresh rcu_cpu_stall_timeout (softlockup_thresh = 2 *
watchdog_thresh):
/ #
/ # busybox cat
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:04:29PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
On 2015/1/19 16:42, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:07:15PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
Hi,
On my x86_64 qemu virtual machine, RCU CPU stall console spews may
lead to soft lockup disabled.
If
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 05:04:29PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
Did you really intend to acquire the same spinlock twice in a row,
forcing a self-deadlock? If not, I of course suggest changing the second
spin_lock() to spin_unlock().
Yes, i acquire the same spinlock twice in order to
On 2015/1/19 16:42, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 04:07:15PM +0800, Zhang Zhen wrote:
Hi,
On my x86_64 qemu virtual machine, RCU CPU stall console spews may
lead to soft lockup disabled.
If softlockup_thresh rcu_cpu_stall_timeout (softlockup_thresh = 2 *
44 matches
Mail list logo