On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 09:02:33PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:55:45 -0700
>
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:10:29PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >> Just to report, turning softlockup back on fixes things for me on
> >> sparc64 too.
> >
> > Very good!
> >
> >> The thing about softlockup is it runs an hrtimer, which seems to run
> >> about every 4 seconds.
> >
> > I could see where that could shake things loose, but I am surprised that
> > it would be needed. I ran a short run with CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR=y
> > with no trouble, but I will be running a longer test later on.
> >
> >> So I wonder if this is a NO_HZ problem.
> >
> > Might be. My tests run with NO_HZ_FULL=n and NO_HZ_IDLE=y. What are
> > you running? (Again, my symptoms are slightly different, so I might
> > be seeing a different bug.)
>
> I run with NO_HZ_FULL=n and NO_HZ_IDLE=y, just like you.
>
> To clarify, the symptoms show up with SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR disabled.
Same here -- but my failure case happens fairly rarely, so it will take
some time to gain reasonable confidence that enabling SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR
had effect.
But you are right, might be interesting to try NO_HZ_PERIODIC=y
or NO_HZ_FULL=y. So many possible tests, and so little time. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
