lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH RT 2/4] Revert "timers: do not raise softirq unconditionally"
From
Date
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 06:23 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:17 -0600, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke wrote:
> >
> > On 03/22/2015 10:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >> Why can't we just Let swapper be the owner when in irq with no dummy?
> > >>
> >
> > Thanks Mike for the suggestion. That may also work. Unfortunately
> > somehow I'm still having a hung problem, which may be related to the
> > priority of the interrupt handler task.
> >
> > >> I have "don't raise timer unconditionally" re-applied, the check for a
> > >> running callback bits of my nohz_full fixlet, and the below on top of
> > >> that, and all _seems_ well.
> > >
> > > But not so well on 64 core box. That has nothing to do with hacklet
> > > though, re-applying timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch
> > > without thta hangs the 64 core box during boot with no help from me
> > > other than to patchlet to let nohz work at all, seems there's another
> > > issue lurking there. Hohum. Without 'don't raise..", big box is fine.
> > >
> >
> > If you get your patch to work, I could try my test that was able to
> > reproduce the problem consistently.
>
> If you had "don't raise timer unconditionally" applied, no surprise, my
> big box hangs too with or without hacklet. If didn't have it applied,
> you don't need the hack. If you had both and rtmutex debugging turned
> on, posted version _should_ explode, as it didn't bother to side-step
> that bit (et al).

Oh, and if you didn't have the below enabled, you'll certainly hang.

rt-nohz_full-fix-nohz_full-for-PREEMPT_RT_FULL.patch

-Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-26 07:21    [W:0.161 / U:0.624 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site