On 07/26/2016 06:39 PM, hejianet wrote:
>>>
>> and you choose to patch both of the alloc_*() functions. Why not just
>> fix it at the common call site? Seems like that
>> spin_lock(_lock) could be a cond_resched_lock() which would fix
>> both cases.
> I agree to move the cond_resched() to a
On 07/26/2016 06:39 PM, hejianet wrote:
>>>
>> and you choose to patch both of the alloc_*() functions. Why not just
>> fix it at the common call site? Seems like that
>> spin_lock(_lock) could be a cond_resched_lock() which would fix
>> both cases.
> I agree to move the cond_resched() to a
Hi Dave
On 7/26/16 11:58 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 07/26/2016 08:44 AM, Jia He wrote:
This patch is to fix such soft lockup. I thouhgt it is safe to call
cond_resched() because alloc_fresh_gigantic_page and alloc_fresh_huge_page
are out of spin_lock/unlock section.
Yikes. So the call site
Hi Dave
On 7/26/16 11:58 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 07/26/2016 08:44 AM, Jia He wrote:
This patch is to fix such soft lockup. I thouhgt it is safe to call
cond_resched() because alloc_fresh_gigantic_page and alloc_fresh_huge_page
are out of spin_lock/unlock section.
Yikes. So the call site
On 7/26/16 11:58 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 07/26/2016 08:44 AM, Jia He wrote:
This patch is to fix such soft lockup. I thouhgt it is safe to call
cond_resched() because alloc_fresh_gigantic_page and alloc_fresh_huge_page
are out of spin_lock/unlock section.
Yikes. So the call site for both
On 7/26/16 11:58 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 07/26/2016 08:44 AM, Jia He wrote:
This patch is to fix such soft lockup. I thouhgt it is safe to call
cond_resched() because alloc_fresh_gigantic_page and alloc_fresh_huge_page
are out of spin_lock/unlock section.
Yikes. So the call site for both
On 07/26/2016 08:44 AM, Jia He wrote:
> This patch is to fix such soft lockup. I thouhgt it is safe to call
> cond_resched() because alloc_fresh_gigantic_page and alloc_fresh_huge_page
> are out of spin_lock/unlock section.
Yikes. So the call site for both the things you patch is this:
>
On 07/26/2016 08:44 AM, Jia He wrote:
> This patch is to fix such soft lockup. I thouhgt it is safe to call
> cond_resched() because alloc_fresh_gigantic_page and alloc_fresh_huge_page
> are out of spin_lock/unlock section.
Yikes. So the call site for both the things you patch is this:
>
In large memory(32TB) powerpc servers, we watched several soft lockup under
stress tests.
The call trace are as follows:
1.
get_page_from_freelist+0x2d8/0xd50
__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x180/0xc20
alloc_fresh_huge_page+0xb0/0x190
set_max_huge_pages+0x164/0x3b0
2.
In large memory(32TB) powerpc servers, we watched several soft lockup under
stress tests.
The call trace are as follows:
1.
get_page_from_freelist+0x2d8/0xd50
__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x180/0xc20
alloc_fresh_huge_page+0xb0/0x190
set_max_huge_pages+0x164/0x3b0
2.
10 matches
Mail list logo