On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 08:54 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:10:44AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 06:12 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 20:50 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > * Mike Galbraith | 2014-01-18 04:25:14 [+0100]: > > > > > > > > >> ># timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch > > > > >> ># rtmutex-use-a-trylock-for-waiter-lock-in-trylock.patch > > > > >> > > > > > >> >..those two out does seem to have stabilized the thing. > > > > >> > > > > >> timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch is on its way out. > > > > >> > > > > >> rtmutex-use-a-trylock-for-waiter-lock-in-trylock.patch confues me. > > > > >> Didn't you report once that your box deadlocks without this patch? Now > > > > >> your 64way box on the other hand does not work with it? > > > > > > > > > >If 'do not raise' is applied, 'use a trylock' won't save you. If 'do > > > > is this just an observation or you do know why it won't save me? > > > > > > It's an observation from beyond the grave from the 64 core box that it > > > repeatedly did NOT save :) Autopsy photos below. > > > > > > I've built 3.12.8-rt9 with Stevens v2 "timer: Raise softirq if there's > > > irq_work" to see if it'll survive. > > > > And it did, configured both as nohz_tick, and nohz_full_all. The irqs > > are enabled warning in can_stop_full_tick() fired for nohz_full_all, but > > that's it. > > > > For grins, I also applied Paul's v3 timer latency series while testing > > nohz_full_all config. The box was heavily loaded the vast majority of > > the time, but it didn't explode or do anything obviously evil. > > Cool! May I add your Tested-by? Certainly. -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
