Completion wait timeout error thrown by i2c-ismt.c driver
Hi, I have come across the following problem: Error: After pasting ~130kb text in console, multiple "ismt_smbus :00:12.0: completion wait timed out" messages are seen in dmesg. Configuration: 1. Custom Debian-based operating system based on Linux kernel 6.1.25-13-amd64. 2. Sysrq is set to 16. 3. Following peripherals are present: a. Intel Corporation Atom Processor C3000 Series SMBus Contoller (Driver i2c_ismt). b. Serial controller: Intel Corporation Atom Processor C3000 Series HSUART Controller (Driver 8250_mid) 4. The original baudrate of the serial controller is 115200, however, we configure its baudrate to 57600. 5. Model name: Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU C3558 @ 2.20GHz; Number of cores = 4; RAM = 16GB. Additional observations: 1. The paste operation takes around 61 minutes. 2. Number of interrupts on serial controller during this time is around 175000. 3. Number of interrupts on SMBus controller during this time is around 346000. 4. When sysrq is set to 0, the problem does not occur. 5. The interrupts on the IRQ lines for serial driver and SMBus driver are serviced by the same core. 6. If I ensure that the interrupts on the serial and SMBus driver are managed by different cores, the problem does not occur. 7. During the paste process, the CPU usage of the core (that handles both interrupts) goes to 100%, then suddenly drops to 0%, before returning to normal values (around 90%). 8. If the baudrate is set to 115200 (original value), the problem does not occur. I studied the source code for the serial driver. I could not find anything which may have caused other interrupts to get blocked. I would appreciate any direction and/or explanation for this behavior. Please let me know if any additional information is needed from my end. Regards, Rahul ___ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
Calculating private and shared memory for processes
Hello, Just wanted to follow up on this question. Please let me know if I'm missing anything basic that I need to do to solve this problem. Regards, Rahul From: Rahul Gore (Nokia) Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 2:43 PM To: kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org Subject: Calculating private and shared memory for processes Hi, I'm trying to find private and shared memory usage of each process in Linux. One answer on Stack Overflow suggested using 'smem' utility (it reads /proc//smap). However, the sum of all PSS values in 'smem' output is not equal to Used value of the 'free' utility (it reads /proc/meminfo). CLI output: $ sudo smem -t | tail -n 5 2950301 1002 gfstandalone_1_0 --test hw/0 1427244 1435899 1453060 2950368 1002 gfstandalone_1_1 --test hw/0 1432172 1440818 1457588 3012185 rgorejava -classpath /home/rgore0 2159256 2159348 2163268 --- 537 23 702168 2474 26865451 62093364 $ free -w totalusedfree shared buffers cache available Mem:6562503626415500 511020 351372 1541640 3715687638119868 Swap:2097148 726148 1371000 So, I doubt the accuracy of the values in /proc//smap. Is there a more reliable alternative? Regards, Rahul ___ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
Calculating private and shared memory for processes
Hi, I'm trying to find private and shared memory usage of each process in Linux. One answer on Stack Overflow suggested using 'smem' utility (it reads /proc//smap). However, the sum of all PSS values in 'smem' output is not equal to Used value of the 'free' utility (it reads /proc/meminfo). CLI output: $ sudo smem -t | tail -n 5 2950301 1002 gfstandalone_1_0 --test hw/0 1427244 1435899 1453060 2950368 1002 gfstandalone_1_1 --test hw/0 1432172 1440818 1457588 3012185 rgorejava -classpath /home/rgore0 2159256 2159348 2163268 --- 537 23 702168 2474 26865451 62093364 $ free -w totalusedfree shared buffers cache available Mem:6562503626415500 511020 351372 1541640 3715687638119868 Swap:2097148 726148 1371000 So, I doubt the accuracy of the values in /proc//smap. Is there a more reliable alternative? Regards, Rahul ___ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
