Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 May 2023 19:37:41 +0800 | Subject | Re: [Question] softlockup in run_timer_softirq | From | "liujian (CE)" <> |
| |
On 2023/5/4 10:59, John Stultz wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 6:50 PM liujian (CE) <liujian56@huawei.com> wrote: >> On 2023/5/2 11:06, John Stultz wrote: >>> So I wanted to revive this old thread, as Frank Woo mentioned his team >>> has seen a similar issue as well. >>> >>> Liujian: I'm curious if you've made any further progress with your >>> adapted patch ontop of PeterZ's softirq_needs_break patch series? >>> >> Hi John, >> Only the commit ("softirq, timer: Use softirq_needs_break()") is >> added to the patchset of Peter, and no other modification is made. >>> Might it be worth re-submitting the whole series for consideration upstream? >>> >> I agree very much and expect, because we often encounter similar >> problems when doing fuzzy tests (especially when the test machine is poor). > > Ok. Will you submit the series + your patch to the list for review and > consideration then? > The patch[1] has been sent out. Please help review it. Thank you very much. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230505113315.3307723-1-liujian56@huawei.com/
> Please include Frank and Rhine on CC so they can validate and provide > Tested-by: tags if it works for them as well. > > thanks > -john
| |