On 2019-02-19 17:27:41 [+0100], Juri Lelli wrote:
> It is better. Warning message doesn't appear anymore.
Okay, thanks.
Sebastian
On 19/02/19 17:06, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-02-19 15:58:26 [+0100], Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi,
> Hi,
>
> > I've been seeing those messages while running some stress tests (hog
> > tasks pinned to CPUs).
> >
> > Have yet to see them after I applied this patch earlier this morning
On 2019-02-19 15:58:26 [+0100], Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> I've been seeing those messages while running some stress tests (hog
> tasks pinned to CPUs).
>
> Have yet to see them after I applied this patch earlier this morning (it
> usually took not much time to reproduce).
So is it better or
Hi,
On 18/02/19 17:31, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> If the ksoftirqd thread has a softirq pending and is blocked on the
> `local_softirq_locks' lock then softirq_check_pending_idle() won't
> complain because the "lock owner" will mask away this softirq from the
> mask of pending softirqs.
>
If the ksoftirqd thread has a softirq pending and is blocked on the
`local_softirq_locks' lock then softirq_check_pending_idle() won't
complain because the "lock owner" will mask away this softirq from the
mask of pending softirqs.
If ksoftirqd has an additional softirq pending then it won't be mas
5 matches
Mail list logo
