On 25/02/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michal,
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 23:45 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Here is a dmesg after over 25 hours of uptime
> http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.21-rc1/git-dmesg3
> nothing new.
can you please turn off
On 25/02/07, Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michal,
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 23:45 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Here is a dmesg after over 25 hours of uptime
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.21-rc1/git-dmesg3
nothing new.
can you please turn off
Michal,
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 23:45 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Here is a dmesg after over 25 hours of uptime
> http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.21-rc1/git-dmesg3
> nothing new.
can you please turn off CONFIG_SCHED_SMT ? It seems all reports have one
thing in
Michal,
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 23:45 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Here is a dmesg after over 25 hours of uptime
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.21-rc1/git-dmesg3
nothing new.
can you please turn off CONFIG_SCHED_SMT ? It seems all reports have one
thing in
Hi Ingo,
On 23/02/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michal,
* Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is more
>
> hardirqs last enabled at (30787): [] syscall_exit_work+0x11/0x26
> hardirqs last disabled at (30788): [] ret_from_exception+0x9/0xc
> softirqs last enabled
Hi Ingo,
On 23/02/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michal,
* Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is more
hardirqs last enabled at (30787): [c0104249] syscall_exit_work+0x11/0x26
hardirqs last disabled at (30788): [c0103fc9] ret_from_exception+0x9/0xc
softirqs last
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> could you please try the patch below? This is pretty much the only
> condition under which we can silently 'leak' pending softirqs, and
> trigger the new warning: if something does cond_resched_softirq() in
> non-runnable state. (which is a no-no,
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
could you please try the patch below? This is pretty much the only
condition under which we can silently 'leak' pending softirqs, and
trigger the new warning: if something does cond_resched_softirq() in
non-runnable state. (which is a no-no, but
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 07:08 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Index: linux/kernel/sched.c
> ===
> --- linux.orig/kernel/sched.c
> +++ linux/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -4689,6 +4689,7 @@ int __sched cond_resched_softirq(void)
>
Michal,
* Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is more
>
> hardirqs last enabled at (30787): [] syscall_exit_work+0x11/0x26
> hardirqs last disabled at (30788): [] ret_from_exception+0x9/0xc
> softirqs last enabled at (30202): [] __do_softirq+0xe4/0xea
> softirqs last disabled
Michal Piotrowski napisał(a):
> Thomas Gleixner napisał(a):
>> Michal,
>>
>> On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:38 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
But you still have those softirq pending messages, right ?
>>> Yes
>>>
>>> (+ new NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 02)
>> Yike, that's the timer softirq.
>>
>>
Michal Piotrowski napisał(a):
Thomas Gleixner napisał(a):
Michal,
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:38 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
But you still have those softirq pending messages, right ?
Yes
(+ new NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 02)
Yike, that's the timer softirq.
Can you add the patch
Michal,
* Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is more
hardirqs last enabled at (30787): [c0104249] syscall_exit_work+0x11/0x26
hardirqs last disabled at (30788): [c0103fc9] ret_from_exception+0x9/0xc
softirqs last enabled at (30202): [c01265df] __do_softirq+0xe4/0xea
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 07:08 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Index: linux/kernel/sched.c
===
--- linux.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux/kernel/sched.c
@@ -4689,6 +4689,7 @@ int __sched cond_resched_softirq(void)
Thomas Gleixner napisał(a):
> Michal,
>
> On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:38 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>>> But you still have those softirq pending messages, right ?
>> Yes
>>
>> (+ new NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 02)
>
> Yike, that's the timer softirq.
>
> Can you add the patch below, maybe it
Michal,
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:38 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > But you still have those softirq pending messages, right ?
>
> Yes
>
> (+ new NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 02)
Yike, that's the timer softirq.
Can you add the patch below, maybe it gives us some useful info. Please
enable
On 21/02/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 23:37 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 20/02/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 19:54 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > >
> > > Might it be
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 23:37 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 20/02/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 19:54 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > >
> > > Might it be 6ba9b346e1e0eca65ec589d32de3a9fe32dc5de6 commit?
> >
> > I doubt that it is, but can you
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 23:37 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 20/02/07, Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 19:54 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Might it be 6ba9b346e1e0eca65ec589d32de3a9fe32dc5de6 commit?
I doubt that it is, but can you revert it ?
I'm
On 21/02/07, Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 23:37 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 20/02/07, Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 19:54 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Might it be 6ba9b346e1e0eca65ec589d32de3a9fe32dc5de6
Michal,
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:38 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
But you still have those softirq pending messages, right ?
Yes
(+ new NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 02)
Yike, that's the timer softirq.
Can you add the patch below, maybe it gives us some useful info. Please
enable
Thomas Gleixner napisał(a):
Michal,
On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:38 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
But you still have those softirq pending messages, right ?
Yes
(+ new NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 02)
Yike, that's the timer softirq.
Can you add the patch below, maybe it gives us some
On 20/02/07, Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 19:54 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>
> Might it be 6ba9b346e1e0eca65ec589d32de3a9fe32dc5de6 commit?
I doubt that it is, but can you revert it ?
I'm using the latest kernel without this patch since 3 hours.
So
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 19:54 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>
> Might it be 6ba9b346e1e0eca65ec589d32de3a9fe32dc5de6 commit?
I doubt that it is, but can you revert it ?
tglx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
Hi,
I have a problem with timers.
NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 20
NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 20
BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
[] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
[] show_trace+0x12/0x14
[] dump_stack+0x16/0x18
[] softlockup_tick+0xa7/0xb9
[] run_local_timers+0x12/0x14
[]
Hi,
I have a problem with timers.
NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 20
NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 20
BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
[c01050f9] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
[c01057e0] show_trace+0x12/0x14
[c0105892] dump_stack+0x16/0x18
[c0151214] softlockup_tick+0xa7/0xb9
[c012a18f]
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 19:54 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Might it be 6ba9b346e1e0eca65ec589d32de3a9fe32dc5de6 commit?
I doubt that it is, but can you revert it ?
tglx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On 20/02/07, Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 19:54 +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Might it be 6ba9b346e1e0eca65ec589d32de3a9fe32dc5de6 commit?
I doubt that it is, but can you revert it ?
I'm using the latest kernel without this patch since 3 hours.
So far so
28 matches
Mail list logo
