On 7/17/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Subject: softlockup: fix Xen bogosity
> > > From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > this Xen related commit:
> > >
> >
> > Well, not just Xen. It relates
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> One possibility is that sched_clock() is bollixed and (say) it's returning
> a 32-bit value. That'll cause the softlockup logic to get a bit sick when
> time wraps.
FYI, The current ff x86 sched_clock() [which you likely have, it's not
mainline] tend
On Wed, Jul 25 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Subject: blktrace: use cpu_clock() instead of sched_clock()
> > > From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > use cpu_clock() instead of sched_clock(). (the latter is not a proper
> > > clock-source
* Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Subject: blktrace: use cpu_clock() instead of sched_clock()
> > From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > use cpu_clock() instead of sched_clock(). (the latter is not a proper
> > clock-source)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jul 25 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > * 2^30ns == 1.074s.
> > > */
> > > -static unsigned long get_timestamp(void)
> > > +static unsigned long get_timestamp(int this_cpu)
> > > {
> > > - return sched_clock() >> 30; /* 2^30 ~= 10^9 */
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * 2^30ns == 1.074s.
> > */
> > -static unsigned long get_timestamp(void)
> > +static unsigned long get_timestamp(int this_cpu)
> > {
> > - return sched_clock() >> 30; /* 2^30 ~= 10^9 */
> > + return cpu_clock(this_cpu) >> 30; /* 2^30 ~= 10
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:04:39 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > fix-the-softlockup-watchdog-to-actually-work.patch
> > softlockup-make-asm-irq_regsh-available-on-every-platform.patch
> > softlockup-improve-debug-output.patch
> > softlockup-watchdog-style-cleanups.patch
> > softlockup
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > softlockup-add-irq-regs-h.patch
> > softlockup-better-printout.patch
> > softlockup-cleanups.patch
> > softlockup-use-cpu-clock.patch
> >
> > they are all necessary.
>
> I think I have. Seems that someone hasn't been naming their patches
> con
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:52:04 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > apparently the functionality of the soft lockup watchdog was never
> > > actually tested with that patch applied ...
> > >
> > > [this is -stable material too.]
> >
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Still isn't working. I'm getting random meaningless softlockup
> > trippings coming out for no apparent reason.
>
> hm, you still havent applied the other 4 patches i sent:
>
> softlockup-fix.patch
>
> softlockup-add-irq-regs-h.patch
> softlock
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > apparently the functionality of the soft lockup watchdog was never
> > actually tested with that patch applied ...
> >
> > [this is -stable material too.]
>
> Still isn't working. I'm getting random meaningless softlockup
> trippings coming out
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:49:34 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this Xen related commit:
>
>commit 966812dc98e6a7fcdf759cbfa0efab77500a8868
>Author: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tue May 8 00:28:02 2007 -0700
>
>Ignore stolen time in the softloc
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Well, my observation is that both softlockup and the scheduler really
>> want to measure unstolen time, so it seemed to me that sched_clock was
>> a nice common place to implement that, rather than implementing a
>> whole new time interface. At the time that seemed OK, and
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > no, the return value after idling can be completely random on some
> > boxes, on a 64-bit scale - triggering the softlockup watchdog randomly.
> > (some boxes return random TSC values, etc.) Again, it's fine for the
> >
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> no, the return value after idling can be completely random on some
> boxes, on a 64-bit scale - triggering the softlockup watchdog randomly.
> (some boxes return random TSC values, etc.) Again, it's fine for the
> scheduler's purpose, that's why i named it sched_clock().
>
>
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm, or more specifically, why would that be a problem for softlockup?
> Do you mean it doesn't measure time during ACPI idle? That would just
> make it trigger later than it would otherwise.
no, the return value after idling can be completely
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> sched_clock(), as its name suggests it, is meant for the scheduler's
> use. The scheduler generally only needs to measure time when the CPU is
> busy - not across idle periods. So sched_clock() can (and will) break
> across certain types of ACPI idle methods.
>
Hm, or mo
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> How reliable does it need to be? All we need is to measure "about 10
>> seconds"; if we can't get that out of it, how can it be good for
>> anything else?
>>
>
> sched_clock(), as its name suggests it, is meant for the scheduler's
> use. The scheduler generally only n
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How reliable does it need to be? All we need is to measure "about 10
> seconds"; if we can't get that out of it, how can it be good for
> anything else?
sched_clock(), as its name suggests it, is meant for the scheduler's
use. The scheduler
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> btw., could you apply the patch below as well? Maybe sched_clock() is
> misbehaving on your box? (with this i have 5 softlockup patches in my
> tree - and they are working fine so far.)
>
> Ingo
>
> >
> Subject: [patch] softlockup: use a reliable global
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I'll sit on this patch for a while until this gets sorted out.
> Meanwhile, please double-check the elapsed-time arithmetic in there,
> maybe do a bit of runtime testing?
btw., could you apply the patch below as well? Maybe sched_clock() is
mis
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [this is -stable material too.]
>
> This seems terribly sensitive.
>
> Someone has broken the Vaio (shock, horror). It now has mysterious
> jerkiness: when leaning on autorepeat it stalls for maybe 0.25 seconds
> every 1.5 seconds. The stalls a
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:49:34 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject: fix the softlockup watchdog to actually work
> From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> this Xen related commit:
>
>commit 966812dc98e6a7fcdf759cbfa0efab77500a8868
>Author: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL P
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > > + if ((print_timestamp >= touch_timestamp &&
> > > + print_timestamp < (touch_timestamp + 1)) ||
> > > + did_panic || !per_cpu(watchdog_task, this_cpu
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> > + if ((print_timestamp >= touch_timestamp &&
> > + print_timestamp < (touch_timestamp + 1)) ||
> > + did_panic || !per_cpu(watchdog_task, this_cpu)) {
> > return;
> > + }
> >
> > /* do not pri
* Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > + if ((print_timestamp >= touch_timestamp &&
> > + print_timestamp < (touch_timestamp + 1)) ||
> > + did_panic || !per_cpu(watchdog_task, this_cpu)) {
> > return;
> > + }
> >
> > /* do not prin
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:49:34 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Subject: softlockup: fix Xen bogosity
> > > From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > this Xen related commit:
> > >
> >
> > Well, not just Xen.
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Subject: softlockup: fix Xen bogosity
> > From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > this Xen related commit:
> >
>
> Well, not just Xen. It relates to any virtual environment: kvm,
> lguest, vmi, xen... (Not that
28 matches
Mail list logo
