2015-11-02 20:39 GMT+03:00 Dave Hansen <dave.han...@intel.com>: > On 11/02/2015 01:32 AM, Andrey Ryabinin wrote: >> And the major factor here is number 2. >> >> In your dmesg: >> [ 67.891156] rbtree testing -> 570841 cycles >> [ 88.609636] augmented rbtree testing >> [ 116.546697] NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 22s! >> [swapper/0:1] >> >> >> I've tried to reproduce this, and got this: >> [ 0.693574] rbtree testing -> 15513 cycles >> 570841/15513 = 36x times faster. >> >> [ 1.159450] augmented rbtree testing -> 23675 cycles >> [ 1.864996] >> It took less than a second, meanwhile in your case it didn't finish in >> 22 seconds. >> >> This makes me think that your host is overloaded and the problem is on >> your side. > > It's probably just a matter of putting some cond_resched()s in the test > code.
Yes, but is it worthwhile? It's very likely that lockup will just trigger in another place. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
