WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Avoid triggering the softlockup BUG when offline

To: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxx>, Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Avoid triggering the softlockup BUG when offline for too long.
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:54:26 +0000
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:54:55 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5d6222a80611270847y5e05b994sa9bce57819a3eea5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AccSVXW6tErZOX5IEduhIAANk04WTA==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Avoid triggering the softlockup BUG when offline for too long.
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
On 27/11/06 4:47 pm, "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <glommer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> * stolen time, as well as blocked time, does not have it's corresponding
>> per processor variable updated all in once, but in multiples of
>> NS_PER_TICK chuncks. If we're out for too long, we could detect stolen
>> being too great multiple times, leading to far more calls to the
>> softlockup watchdog then we want too.
> 
> FYI, I just made a simple test checking for stolen time instead of
> offline, and it's in fact called way too oftenly.

That doesn't make sense. Processed_stolen_time should lag at most 1 jiffy
behind actual stolen time. So you still need to accumulate at least 10*HZ-1
jiffies of stolen time in one go to end up touching the softlockup watchdog.
As far as I can see, anyway. What workload did you run to test using stolen
time?

 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel