On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:04 PM, Doug Smythies <dsmyth...@telus.net> wrote: > On 2018.03.06 12:57 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > ...[snip]... > >> And the two paragraphs below still apply: > >>> I have tested these patches on a couple of machines, including the very >>> laptop >>> I'm sending them from, without any obvious issues, but please give them a go >>> if you can, especially if you have an easy way to reproduce the problem they >>> are targeting. The patches are on top of 4.16-rc3 (if you need a git branch >>> with them for easier testing, please let me know). > > Hi, > > I am still having some boot troubles with V2. However, and because my system > did eventually boot, seemingly O.K., I didn't re-boot a bunch of times for > further testing.
OK, thanks for letting me know. > I ran my 100% load on one CPU test, which is for idle state 0 issues, on > my otherwise extremely idle test server. I never did have very good ways > to test issues with the other idle states (Thomas Ilsche's specialty). > > During the test I got some messages (I also got some with the V1 patch set): > > [16246.655148] rcu_preempt kthread starved for 60005 jiffies! g10557 c10556 > f0x0 RCU_GP_WAIT_FQS(3) ->state=0x0 ->cpu=5 > [19556.565007] rcu_preempt kthread starved for 60003 jiffies! g12126 c12125 > f0x2 RCU_GP_WAIT_FQS(3) ->state=0x0 ->cpu=5 > [20223.066251] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog on CPU4: Marking clocksource > 'tsc' as unstable because the skew is too large: > [20223.066260] clocksource: 'hpet' wd_now: 6b02e6a0 > wd_last: c70685ef mask: ffffffff > [20223.066262] clocksource: 'tsc' cs_now: 3ed0d6f109f5 > cs_last: 3e383b5c058d mask: ffffffffffffffff > [20223.066264] tsc: Marking TSC unstable due to clocksource watchdog > [26720.509156] rcu_preempt kthread starved for 60003 jiffies! g16640 > c16639 f0x2 RCU_GP_WAIT_FQS(3) ->state=0x0 ->cpu=5 > [29058.215330] rcu_preempt kthread starved for 60004 jiffies! g17522 > c17521 f0x0 RCU_GP_WAIT_FQS(3) ->state=0x402 ->cpu=4 > ... Can you please check if that's reporoducible with just the first three patches in the series applied? > The other observation is sometimes the number of irqs (turbostat) jumps > a lot. This did not occur with the V1 patch set. An increase in irqs is > expected, but I don't think that much. Right. > Note: I am unable to show a correlation between the above log entries > and the jumps in irqs. Thanks, Rafael
