On Wednesday 06 Jul 2005 18:01, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Alistair John Strachan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I'm beginning to understand the issue, and I see why you think the
> > > proposed patch fixes it. I'll compile and boot V0.7.51-05 now.
> >
> > Indeed, this seems to have fixed it.
> >
> > ( softirq-timer/0-3 |#0): new 8 us maximum-latency wakeup.
> > ( softirq-timer/0-3 |#0): new 9 us maximum-latency wakeup.
> > ( softirq-timer/0-3 |#0): new 9 us maximum-latency wakeup.
> > ( softirq-timer/0-3 |#0): new 9 us maximum-latency wakeup.
> > ( softirq-timer/0-3 |#0): new 10 us maximum-latency wakeup.
> > ( softirq-timer/0-3 |#0): new 14 us maximum-latency wakeup.
>
> great! Do the softlockup warnings still occur?
Yes, but in no greater a number.
[root] 18:09 [~] uptime
18:09:39 up 19 min, 4 users, load average: 0.36, 0.29, 0.16
[root] 18:09 [~] dmesg | grep BUG: | wc -l
5
So far, however, there have been no lockups! The previous kernels would die
very obviously within a couple of minutes.
I wonder if the ACPI problem was causing lockups (one thought I had was that
the "ondemand" cpufreq governor was generating more ACPI events than usual,
as the BIOS stepped through the different CPU speeds).
>
> > Find attached another trace (only 33us this time).
>
> the main latency comes from here:
> > <...>-3485 0Dnh2 13us : enqueue_task (__schedule)
> > <...>-3485 0Dnh2 14us+: trace_array (__schedule)
> > <...>-3485 0Dnh2 18us : trace_array <softirq--3> (69 6e)
> > <...>-3485 0Dnh2 18us : trace_array <<...>-3485> (76 78)
> > <...>-3485 0Dnh2 20us+: trace_array (__schedule)
> > softirq--3 0Dnh2 28us+: __switch_to (__schedule)
>
> trace_array() can be quite expensive (it generates a trace entry of
> every runnable task, with interrupts and preemption disabled). It is
> disabled if RT_DEADLOCK_DETECT is disabled. For pure wakeup latency
> tracing, the most optimal combination of options is:
>
[snip]
>
> such a kernel will still be able to generate /proc/latency_trace traces,
> but has much lower runtime overhead than your current kernel. (But you
> should probably keep all debugging enabled until all of the current
> problems have been resolved.)
>
> Ingo
Well, thanks for the info. As you said, when the remaining issues have been
resolved, I'll need to step up to a more efficient kernel, because I require
extremely low kernel latency for the software I'm writing (this was not an
idle patch fest).
--
Cheers,
Alistair.
personal: alistair()devzero!co!uk
university: s0348365()sms!ed!ac!uk
student: CS/CSim Undergraduate
contact: 1F2 55 South Clerk Street,
Edinburgh. EH8 9PP.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |