On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:43:01PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:13:50AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Yes, this patch helps my case as well.
> >
> > Very good!!!
> >
> > Pranith, I can take this patc
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:13:50AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
>>
>> Yes, this patch helps my case as well.
>
> Very good!!!
>
> Pranith, I can take this patch, but would you be willing to invert
> the sense of ->nocb_leader_wake (e.g., call
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:13:50AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Sat) 23 Aug 2014 [03:43:38], Pranith Kumar wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hmmm... Please try replacing the synchronize_rcu() in
> > > __sysrq_swap_key_ops() with (say) schedule_ti
On (Sat) 23 Aug 2014 [03:43:38], Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm... Please try replacing the synchronize_rcu() in
> > __sysrq_swap_key_ops() with (say) schedule_timeout_interruptible(HZ / 10).
> > I bet that gets rid of the hang. (An
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 11:39:39PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 08:26:10PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > It might well! Another p
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 08:26:10PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>>
>> > It might well! Another possibility is that the early_initcall function
>> > doing the synchronize_rcu
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 08:26:10PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
>
> > It might well! Another possibility is that the early_initcall function
> > doing the synchronize_rcu() is happening before the early_initcall
> > creating the RCU gr
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> It might well! Another possibility is that the early_initcall function
> doing the synchronize_rcu() is happening before the early_initcall
> creating the RCU grace-period kthreads.
>
> Seems like we need to close both holes. Let's see
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 03:43:38AM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm... Please try replacing the synchronize_rcu() in
> > __sysrq_swap_key_ops() with (say) schedule_timeout_interruptible(HZ / 10).
> > I bet that gets rid of the h
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
>
> Hmmm... Please try replacing the synchronize_rcu() in
> __sysrq_swap_key_ops() with (say) schedule_timeout_interruptible(HZ / 10).
> I bet that gets rid of the hang. (And also introduces a low-probability
> bug, but should be OK for te
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 02:53:44PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:44:05PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Fri) 22 Aug 2014 [07:48:19], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 06:26:49PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > On (Fri) 22 Aug 2014 [18:06:51], Amit
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:44:05PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Fri) 22 Aug 2014 [07:48:19], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 06:26:49PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Fri) 22 Aug 2014 [18:06:51], Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > On (Fri) 22 Aug 2014 [17:54:53], Amit Shah wrote:
> >
On (Fri) 22 Aug 2014 [22:44:05], Amit Shah wrote:
> Hm, found it:
>
> The stall happens in do_initcalls().
>
> pm_sysrq_init() is the function that causes the hang. When I #if 0
> the line
>
> register_sysrq_key('o', &sysrq_poweroff_op);
>
> in pm_sysrq_init(), the boot proceeds normally.
On (Fri) 22 Aug 2014 [07:48:19], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 06:26:49PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Fri) 22 Aug 2014 [18:06:51], Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Fri) 22 Aug 2014 [17:54:53], Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > On (Mon) 18 Aug 2014 [21:01:49], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 06:26:49PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Fri) 22 Aug 2014 [18:06:51], Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Fri) 22 Aug 2014 [17:54:53], Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Mon) 18 Aug 2014 [21:01:49], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > The odds are low over the next few days. I am adding na
On (Fri) 22 Aug 2014 [18:06:51], Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Fri) 22 Aug 2014 [17:54:53], Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Mon) 18 Aug 2014 [21:01:49], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > The odds are low over the next few days. I am adding nastier rcutorture
> > > testing, however. It would still be very good
On (Fri) 22 Aug 2014 [17:54:53], Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Mon) 18 Aug 2014 [21:01:49], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > The odds are low over the next few days. I am adding nastier rcutorture
> > testing, however. It would still be very good to get debug information
> > from your setup. One approach
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 11:23:45PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Fri) 15 Aug 2014 [08:04:05], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:54:11AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Wed) 13 Aug 2014 [06:00:49], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:14:39AM +0530, Amit
On (Fri) 15 Aug 2014 [08:04:05], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:54:11AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Wed) 13 Aug 2014 [06:00:49], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:14:39AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > On (Tue) 12 Aug 2014 [14:41:51], Paul E. McKenn
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:54:11AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Wed) 13 Aug 2014 [06:00:49], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:14:39AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Tue) 12 Aug 2014 [14:41:51], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 02:39:36PM -0700, Paul
On (Wed) 13 Aug 2014 [06:00:49], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:14:39AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Tue) 12 Aug 2014 [14:41:51], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 02:39:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:21AM -0700
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:00:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:14:39AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Tue) 12 Aug 2014 [14:41:51], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 02:39:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:2
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:14:39AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Tue) 12 Aug 2014 [14:41:51], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 02:39:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:03:2
On (Tue) 12 Aug 2014 [14:41:51], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 02:39:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:03:21AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> >
> > [ . . . ]
> >
> > > > I know
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 02:41:51PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 02:39:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:03:21AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> >
> > [ . . . ]
> >
> > >
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 02:39:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:03:21AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > > I know of only virtio-console doing this (via userspace only,
> > > though).
>
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:21AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:03:21AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > I know of only virtio-console doing this (via userspace only,
> > though).
>
> As in userspace within the guest? That would not work. The userspace
> tha
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:57:26AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [13:34:21], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:48:45AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > > > In addition "sendkey alt-sysrq-t" at the "(qemu)" prompt dumps all
> > > > tasks'
> > > > stacks,
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:03:21AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [20:45:31], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > > That is a bit surprising. Is it possible that the system is OOMing
> > > quickly due to grace periods not proceeding? If so, maybe giving the
> > > VM more memor
On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [20:45:31], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 01:34:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:48:45AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [13:11:02], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:11:26AM +0530
On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [13:34:21], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:48:45AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [13:11:02], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:11:26AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [09:28:07], Paul E. McKenn
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 01:34:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:48:45AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [13:11:02], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:11:26AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [09:28:07], Paul
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:48:45AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [13:11:02], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:11:26AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [09:28:07], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:43:08PM +0530, Amit
On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [13:11:02], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:11:26AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [09:28:07], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:43:08PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > On (Fri) 08 Aug 2014 [14:46:48], Paul E. McKenn
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:11:26AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [09:28:07], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:43:08PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Fri) 08 Aug 2014 [14:46:48], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 02:43:47PM -0700, Paul
On (Mon) 11 Aug 2014 [09:28:07], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:43:08PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Fri) 08 Aug 2014 [14:46:48], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 02:43:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 12:04:24AM +0530
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:43:08PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Fri) 08 Aug 2014 [14:46:48], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 02:43:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 12:04:24AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > On (Fri) 08 Aug 2014 [11:18:35], Paul
On (Fri) 08 Aug 2014 [14:46:48], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 02:43:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 12:04:24AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Fri) 08 Aug 2014 [11:18:35], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > [ . . . ]
> >
> > > > Hmmm... What hap
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 02:43:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 12:04:24AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Fri) 08 Aug 2014 [11:18:35], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > > Hmmm... What happens if you boot a7d7a143d0b4cb1914705884ca5c25e322dba693
> > > with th
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 12:04:24AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Fri) 08 Aug 2014 [11:18:35], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > Hmmm... What happens if you boot a7d7a143d0b4cb1914705884ca5c25e322dba693
> > with the kernel parameter "acpi=off"?
>
> That doesn't change anything - still hangs.
On (Fri) 08 Aug 2014 [11:18:35], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 11:07:10PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Fri) 08 Aug 2014 [09:25:02], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 02:10:56PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > > On Friday 11 July 2014 07:05 PM, Paul E. McKenn
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 11:07:10PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Fri) 08 Aug 2014 [09:25:02], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 02:10:56PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On Friday 11 July 2014 07:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >From: "Paul E. McKenney"
> > > >
> > > >An 80-C
On (Fri) 08 Aug 2014 [09:25:02], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 02:10:56PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On Friday 11 July 2014 07:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >From: "Paul E. McKenney"
> > >
> > >An 80-CPU system with a context-switch-heavy workload can require so
> > >many
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 02:10:56PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On Friday 11 July 2014 07:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >From: "Paul E. McKenney"
> >
> >An 80-CPU system with a context-switch-heavy workload can require so
> >many NOCB kthread wakeups that the RCU grace-period kthreads spend severa
On Friday 11 July 2014 07:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
From: "Paul E. McKenney"
An 80-CPU system with a context-switch-heavy workload can require so
many NOCB kthread wakeups that the RCU grace-period kthreads spend several
tens of percent of a CPU just awakening things. This clearly will no
From: "Paul E. McKenney"
An 80-CPU system with a context-switch-heavy workload can require so
many NOCB kthread wakeups that the RCU grace-period kthreads spend several
tens of percent of a CPU just awakening things. This clearly will not
scale well: If you add enough CPUs, the RCU grace-period
46 matches
Mail list logo