On 06/05/2013 08:46 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 20:41 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: >> On 06/05/2013 08:26 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: >>> On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 20:14 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Ah, so, that's why it's showing up now. We probably have had the same >>>> issue all along but it used to be masked by the softirq limiting. Do >>>> you care to revive the 10 iterations limit so that it's limited by >>>> both the count and timing? We do wanna find out why softirq is >>>> spinning indefinitely tho. >>> >>> Yes, no problem, I can do that. >> >> Limiting it to 5000 fixes my problem, so if you wanted it larger than 10, >> that would >> be fine by me. >> >> I can send a version of my patch easily enough if we can agree on the max >> number of >> loops (and if indeed my version of the patch is acceptable). > > Well, 10 was the prior limit and seems really fine. > > The non update on jiffies seems quite exceptional condition (I hope...) > > We use in Google a patch triggering warning is a thread holds the cpu > without taking care to need_resched() for more than xx ms
Well, I'm sure that patch works nicely until the clock stops moving forward :) I'll post a patch with limit of 10 shortly. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear <gree...@candelatech.com> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
