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] cpuidle causing Dom0 soft lockups

>>> "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> 05.02.10 10:00 >>>
>>From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx] 
>>Sent: 2010年2月5日 16:49
>>
>>Yes, this patch works for us too. So a non-hacky version of it would be
>>appreciated.
>>
>>I also meanwhile tried out the idea to reduce the contention on
>>xtime_lock (attached for reference). Things appear to work fine, but
>>there is an obvious problem (with - thus far to me - no obvious
>>explanation) with it: The number of timer interrupts on CPUs not on
>>duty to run do_timer() and alike is increasing significantly, 
>>with spikes
>>of over 100,000 per second. I'm investigating this, but of course any
>>idea anyone of you might have what could be causing this would be
>>very welcome.
>>
>
>forgive my poor english. From your patch, only cpu on duty will invoke
>do_timer to update global timestamp. Why in your test it's CPUs 'not
>on duty' to have high frequent do_timer? I may read it wrong. :-(

If you look at the patch, I added extra statistics for those timer
interrupts that occur when a CPU is "on duty" (recorded as IRQ0,
which is otherwise unused) and when not "on duty" (recorded as MCEs,
since those hopefully(!!!) won't occur either, and in no case at a high
rate).

>From that I know that the rate of interrupts (not the rate of do_timer()
invocations) is much higher on not-on-duty CPUs, but is roughly as
without the patch for the on-duty one.

Jan

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