R 100.0 0.0 25:50.13 ksoftirqd/4
25 root 20 0 000 R 100.0 0.0 25:50.42 ksoftirqd/5
Karl
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 4:17 PM Karl Johnson
wrote:
> Quick follow-up, I tried kernel 042stab137.1 with and without nohz=off,
> same issue, 3 cores taking 100% each and load a
ere's something wrong between kernel 133.2 and 137.1.
I haven't tested them all.
Karl
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 1:55 AM Vasily Averin wrote:
> On 5/30/19 10:39 PM, Karl Johnson wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > It's always related to swapper and ksoftirqd:
> "swap
sysrq-trigger
> it should dump current state of all running processors.
> you can do it few times to monitor state of affected processes.
>
> Thank you,
> Vasily Averin
>
>
> On 5/30/19 7:54 PM, Karl Johnson wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've upgra
Hello,
I've upgraded from 2.6.32-042stab133.2 to 2.6.32-042stab138.1 and since
boot, 2 cores are using 100% cpu on ksoftirqd:
root 21 99.9 0.0 0 0 ?RMay29 1178:07 \_
[ksoftirqd/4]
root 25 99.9 0.0 0 0 ?RMay29 1177:51 \_
[ksoftirqd/5]
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 11:33 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> Hey all
>
> Since I upgraded my CT from Debian Jessie to Debian Stretch (9.3), I
> cannot online migrate it anymore. I figured out that the issue only
> appears while the CT is running mariadb-server (10.1). When I suspend
> the CT while mar
There's a 117.11 testkernel available here
http://fe.virtuozzo.com/1528d80cf1f9ae1f4810e71513b3d90a/ but still no
stable release. I'm also waiting for a 117.X release to have the systemd
PSBM-47889 patch. However, I think they should rebase on 2.6.32-642.4.2
before releasing a new stable to fix CVE
FWIW, I have the same warning since more than 6 months on multiple
vzkernel.
Karl
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Hristo Benev wrote:
> Hi Sergey,
>
> Kernel version is :2.6.32-042stab116.1
>
> Pastebin of the log around the place I see the message:
>
> http://zerobin.hbcom.info/?7056aea1e0bfb
Vasily Averin wrote:
> On 30.03.2016 18:38, Karl Johnson wrote:
> > Hi Vasily,
> >
> > I do indeed use simfs / ext4 / cfq. Only a backup of each containers
> > private areas is done with vzdump and then transferred to a backup
> > server with ncftpput. Compressing
sh me again. I'll send you private link for
> vmcore uploading.
> Investigation of kernel crash dump file probably allows me to find
> bottleneck in your case.
>
> Thank you,
> Vasily Averin
>
> On 29.03.2016 21:03, Karl Johnson wrote:
> > Hi Vasily,
> >
.1, 114 will be I think.
** Due to prematurely decremented calc_load_task, the calculated
loadaverage was off by up to the number of CPUs in the machine.
(BZ#1300349)*
Karl
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Gena Makhomed wrote:
> On 29.03.2016 21:03, Karl Johnson wrote:
>
> Every weekend I d
why you believe you have a problem on your nodes?
>
> Thank you,
> Vasily Averin
>
> On 28.03.2016 20:28, Karl Johnson wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Did anyone notice performance degradation after upgrading vzkernel to
> > 042stab113.X? I’ve been run
Hello,
Did anyone notice performance degradation after upgrading vzkernel to
042stab113.X? I’ve been running 042stab108.5 on few nodes for a while with
no issue and upgraded to 042stab113.12 few weeks ago to fix an important
CVE and rebase to latest rhel6 kernel.
Since the upgrade from 108.5 to 1
12 matches
Mail list logo
