On 05/02/2013 04:33 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> mce_notify_irq() can use simple_waitqueue, no?
>
> Yeah, and I went down that path.
>
> But it also schedules work, which has the issue.
Hmm, okay.
>> The other issue is that mce_report_event() is scheduling a per-cpu
>> workqueue
On 05/02/2013 04:33 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
mce_notify_irq() can use simple_waitqueue, no?
Yeah, and I went down that path.
But it also schedules work, which has the issue.
Hmm, okay.
The other issue is that mce_report_event() is scheduling a per-cpu
workqueue (mce_schedule_work) in
On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 10:41 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt | 2013-04-11 14:33:34 [-0400]:
>
> >As wait queue locks are notorious for long hold times, we can not
> >convert them to raw_spin_locks without causing issues with -rt. But
> >Thomas has created a "simple-wait"
Grumble, somehow these emails got lost in the crowd.
On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 10:24 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt | 2013-04-11 14:33:34 [-0400]:
>
> >diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> >b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> >index e8d8ad0..060e473 100644
>
Grumble, somehow these emails got lost in the crowd.
On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 10:24 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
* Steven Rostedt | 2013-04-11 14:33:34 [-0400]:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
index e8d8ad0..060e473 100644
---
On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 10:41 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
* Steven Rostedt | 2013-04-11 14:33:34 [-0400]:
As wait queue locks are notorious for long hold times, we can not
convert them to raw_spin_locks without causing issues with -rt. But
Thomas has created a simple-wait structure
* Steven Rostedt | 2013-04-11 14:33:34 [-0400]:
>As wait queue locks are notorious for long hold times, we can not
>convert them to raw_spin_locks without causing issues with -rt. But
>Thomas has created a "simple-wait" structure that uses raw spin locks
>which may have been a good fit.
>
* Steven Rostedt | 2013-04-11 14:33:34 [-0400]:
>diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
>b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
>index e8d8ad0..060e473 100644
>--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
>+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
>@@ -1308,6 +1309,61 @@ static void
* Steven Rostedt | 2013-04-25 13:09:37 [-0400]:
>Thanks, I didn't look hard at the warnings.
Now that I booted the kernel I see this
|INFO: task mce-notify:78 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
|"echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
|mce-notify D
* Steven Rostedt | 2013-04-25 13:09:37 [-0400]:
Thanks, I didn't look hard at the warnings.
Now that I booted the kernel I see this
|INFO: task mce-notify:78 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
|echo 0 /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs disables this message.
|mce-notify D 0086
* Steven Rostedt | 2013-04-11 14:33:34 [-0400]:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
index e8d8ad0..060e473 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
@@ -1308,6 +1309,61 @@ static void mce_do_trigger(struct
* Steven Rostedt | 2013-04-11 14:33:34 [-0400]:
As wait queue locks are notorious for long hold times, we can not
convert them to raw_spin_locks without causing issues with -rt. But
Thomas has created a simple-wait structure that uses raw spin locks
which may have been a good fit.
Unfortunately,
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 18:44 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt | 2013-04-11 14:33:34 [-0400]:
>
> >Comments?
>
> So you don't mind if I take this for v3.8?
> I fixed
>
> |arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c:1392:13: warning: function declaration
> isn’t a prototype
* Steven Rostedt | 2013-04-11 14:33:34 [-0400]:
>Comments?
So you don't mind if I take this for v3.8?
I fixed
|arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c:1392:13: warning: function declaration isn’t
a prototype [-Wstrict-prototypes]
>+static void mce_notify_work()
^^
* Steven Rostedt | 2013-04-11 14:33:34 [-0400]:
Comments?
So you don't mind if I take this for v3.8?
I fixed
|arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c:1392:13: warning: function declaration isn’t
a prototype [-Wstrict-prototypes]
+static void mce_notify_work()
^^
On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 18:44 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
* Steven Rostedt | 2013-04-11 14:33:34 [-0400]:
Comments?
So you don't mind if I take this for v3.8?
I fixed
|arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c:1392:13: warning: function declaration
isn’t a prototype
> I'm not (yet). But I just wanted to make sure there wasn't any little
> subtleties that I might be missing.
I don't think there are any hidden subtleties ... if there are then they are
hidden from me too.
-Tony
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 15:38 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > +static void __mce_notify_work(void)
> > +{
> > + /* Not more than two messages every minute */
> > + static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(ratelimit, 60*HZ, 2);
> > +
> > + /* wake processes polling /dev/mcelog */
> > +
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 15:31 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:33:34PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Comments?
>
> I don't have a problem with it except with the yelling - I think I've
> gone deaf. And for Rostedt code it is pretty clean and even *I* can
> understand it
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:33:34PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> index e8d8ad0..060e473 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> #include
>
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:33:34PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Comments?
I don't have a problem with it except with the yelling - I think I've
gone deaf. And for Rostedt code it is pretty clean and even *I* can
understand it :-).
Tony?
Steve, stupid question: since this is -rt only, why even
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:33:34PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Comments?
I don't have a problem with it except with the yelling - I think I've
gone deaf. And for Rostedt code it is pretty clean and even *I* can
understand it :-).
Tony?
Steve, stupid question: since this is -rt only, why even
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:33:34PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
index e8d8ad0..060e473 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
#include
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 15:31 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 02:33:34PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Comments?
I don't have a problem with it except with the yelling - I think I've
gone deaf. And for Rostedt code it is pretty clean and even *I* can
understand it :-).
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 15:38 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
+static void __mce_notify_work(void)
+{
+ /* Not more than two messages every minute */
+ static DEFINE_RATELIMIT_STATE(ratelimit, 60*HZ, 2);
+
+ /* wake processes polling /dev/mcelog */
+
I'm not (yet). But I just wanted to make sure there wasn't any little
subtleties that I might be missing.
I don't think there are any hidden subtleties ... if there are then they are
hidden from me too.
-Tony
26 matches
Mail list logo
