lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] kick ksoftirqd more often to please soft lockup detector
From
Date
On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 14:16 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> Looks like everyone is guilty:
>
> [ 422.765336] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 3 NET_RX ffffffff813f0aa0
> ...
> [ 423.971878] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 4 BLOCK ffffffff812519c8
> [ 423.985093] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 6 TASKLET ffffffff8103422e
> [ 423.993157] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 7 SCHED ffffffff8105e2e1
> [ 424.001018] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 9 RCU ffffffff810a0fed
> [ 424.008691] softirq loop took longer than 1/2 tick need_resched:

/me kicks himself for not printing the actual duration.. :-)

> As expected whenever that 1/2 tick message gets emitted the softirq
> handler is almost running in a need_resched() context.

Yeah.. that's quite expected.

> So is it a good idea to get more aggressive about scheduling ksoftrrqd?

Nah, moving away from softirq more like. I'll put moving the
load-balancer into a kthread on the todo list. And it looks like
everybody else should move to kthreads too.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-29 10:19    [W:0.086 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site