On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 03:35:18PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:14:17 -0700
> Shaohua Li wrote:
>
> > > You think that blocking softirq execution for 42.9 seconds is normal?
> > > Seems we are living in a different universe.
> >
> > I don't say it's normal. I say it's not
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 11:14:17 -0700
Shaohua Li wrote:
> > You think that blocking softirq execution for 42.9 seconds is normal?
> > Seems we are living in a different universe.
>
> I don't say it's normal. I say it's not hard to trigger.
>
> > > it's just VM off. A softirq can hog the cpu.
> >
On Tue, 1 Sep 2015, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 07:13:40PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > > > The HPET wraps interv
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 07:13:40PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > > The HPET wraps interval is 0x / 1 = 42.9s
> > > > >
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > The HPET wraps interval is 0x / 1 = 42.9s
> > > >
> > > > tsc interval is (0x481250b45b - 0x219e6efb50) / 22 = 75s
>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:47:52PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > The HPET wraps interval is 0x / 1 = 42.9s
> > >
> > > tsc interval is (0x481250b45b - 0x219e6efb50) / 22 = 75s
> > >
> > > 32.1 + 42.9 = 75
> > >
> > > The exam
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > The HPET wraps interval is 0x / 1 = 42.9s
> >
> > tsc interval is (0x481250b45b - 0x219e6efb50) / 22 = 75s
> >
> > 32.1 + 42.9 = 75
> >
> > The example shows hpet wraps, while tsc is marked unstable
>
> Thomas & John,
> Is this
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:15:33AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:18:09PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Thomas Gleixner
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> > > >>
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:18:09PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Thomas Gleixner
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Thomas Gleixner
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Thomas Gleixner
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM,
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Gleixner
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, 17 Aug 2
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Gleixner
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> From: Shaohua Li
> >> >>
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:38 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Shaohua Li
>> >>
>> >> >From time to time we saw TSC is marked as unstable in
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 03:17:28PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> > That said, I agree the "should"s and other vague qualifiers in the
> > commit description you point out should have more specifics to back
> > things up. And I'm fine delaying this (and the fol
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> >
> >> From: Shaohua Li
> >>
> >> >From time to time we saw TSC is marked as unstable in our systems, while
> >
> > Stray '>'
> >
> >> the CPUs declare t
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 03:17:28PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> That said, I agree the "should"s and other vague qualifiers in the
>> commit description you point out should have more specifics to back
>> things up. And I'm fine delaying this (a
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 03:17:28PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> >
> >> From: Shaohua Li
> >>
> >> >From time to time we saw TSC is marked as unstable in our systems, while
> >
> > Stray '>'
> >
>
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
>
>> From: Shaohua Li
>>
>> >From time to time we saw TSC is marked as unstable in our systems, while
>
> Stray '>'
>
>> the CPUs declare to have stable TSC. Looking at the clocksource unstable
>> de
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> From: Shaohua Li
>
> >From time to time we saw TSC is marked as unstable in our systems, while
Stray '>'
> the CPUs declare to have stable TSC. Looking at the clocksource unstable
> detection, there are two problems:
> - watchdog clock source wrap. HPE
19 matches
Mail list logo
