On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 12:24:19PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > How well tested is this? From my reading, this will cause > > > > enable_nonboot_cpus() to panic. Is that intended? > > > > > > I wanted to give you an update on results of cpu testing I've done on > > > recent kernels and several architectures. Since -rc1 is out, I wanted > > > to give added visibility to the few issues that remain. > > > > > > The full results are available here: > > > > > > http://crucible.osdl.org/runs/hotplug_report.html > > > > > > This is actually a report for cpu hotplug tests generated hourly, > > > however we run it against all of the kernel -git snapshots posted to > > > kernel.org. Whereever you see a blank square, it indicates the kernel > > > either failed to build or boot. > > So... patch-2.6.18-git4 failed to boot on all architectures? I'm > seeing very little green fields there... actually I only see two green > fields in whole table. No, it failed to build due to a patching issue that has since been fixed (I can rerun those older runs if there is interest.) > (And it would be nice to call ia64 "ia64", not "ita64" :-) Done > > Can you describe the nature of the cpu-hotplug tests you're running? I'd > > be fairly staggered if the kernel was able to survive a full-on cpu-hotplug > > stress test for more than one second, frankly. There's a lot of code in > > there which is non-hotplug-aware. Running a non-preemptible kernel would > > make things appear more stable, perhaps. > > > > iirc Pavel did some testing a month or two ago and was seeing userspace > > misbehaviour? > > Pavel did some testing (like two threads trying to plug/unplug cpus at > the same time), and seen machines dying real fast; but that was fixed, > IIRC, and I did not really torture it after that. If this test is available, I could include it in my test runs if you think it would be worth tracking. Bryce
