On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 02:54:57PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 11:27:29PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Le Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 09:47:04AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> > > > The 10-hour 40-CPU SRCU-P run and pair of 10-hour 16-CPU SRCU-N runs
> > > > completed without failure. The others had some failures, but I need
> > > > to look and see if any were unexpected. In the meantime, I started a
> > > > two-hour 40-CPU SRCU-P run and a pair of one-hour 16-CPU SRCU-N runs on
> > > > just that first commit. Also servicing SIGSHOWER and SIGFOOD. ;-)
> > >
> > > And the two-hour 40-CPU SRCU-P run and a pair of two-hour 16-CPU SRCU-N
> > > runs (on only the first commit) completed without incident.
> > >
> > > The other set of overnight full-stack runs had only tick-stop errors,
> > > so I started a two-hour set on the first commit.
> > >
> > > So far so good!
> >
> > Very nice!
> >
> > As for the tick-stop error, see the upstream fix:
> >
> > 1a6a46477494 ("timers: Tag (hr)timer softirq as hotplug safe")
>
> Got it, thank you!
>
> And the two-hour set of 200*SRCU-N and 100*SRCU-P had only tick-stop
> errors. I am refreshing the test grid, and will run overnight.
And the ten-hour test passed with only the tick-stop errors, representing
2000 hours of SRCU-N and 1000 hours of SRCU-P. (I ran the exact same
stack, without the rebased fix you call out above.)
Looking good!
Thanx, Paul
