On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 02:10:44PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 19/02/16 12:29, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:08:14PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> > >>Hi, > >> > >>On 11/01/16 10:44, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>>[ 196.988204] clocksource: timekeeping watchdog: Marking clocksource 'tsc' as unstable because the skew is too large: > >>>[ 196.988512] clocksource: 'refined-jiffies' wd_now: ffff9b48 wd_last: ffff9acb mask: ffffffff > >>>[ 196.988559] clocksource: 'tsc' cs_now: 4fcfa84354 cs_last: 4f95425e98 mask: ffffffffffffffff > >>>[ 196.992115] clocksource: Switched to clocksource refined-jiffies > >>> > >>>Followed by a hard lockup. > >> > >>What does the above mean? Irq handler taking too long interferes > >>with time keeping ? > > > >That's exactly what it means, we run for too long in interrupt context > >(i.e. with interrupts disabled). > > Okay, just please spell it out in the commit. > > >>I like it BTW. Just the commit message needs more work. :) > >> > >>How is performance impact with just this patch in isolation? Worth > >>progressing it on its own? > > > >I only looked for regressions, which I didn't find. It fixes a machine > >freeze/panic, so I wasn't looking for any other reason to justify the > >patch! > > Then both of the above also need to be documented in the commit message. Hah, one thing I just rediscovered was that the benchmarks for this kill the machine without the patch. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
