From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: ccb@acm.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] increase spinlock-debug looping timeouts from 1 sec to 1 min
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:35:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060619083518.GA14265@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060619013238.6d19570f.akpm@osdl.org>
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> OK. That sucks. A sufficiently large machine with the right mix of
> latencies will get hit by the NMI watchdog in write_lock_irq().
>
> But presumably the situation is much worse with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
> because of that __delay().
>
> So how about we remove the __delay() (which is wrong anyway, because
> loops_per_jiffy isn't calculated with a write_trylock() in the loop
> (which means we're getting scarily close to the NMI watchdog at
> present)).
>
> Instead, calculate a custom loops_per_jiffy for this purpose in
> lib/spinlock_debug.c?
hm, that would be yet another calibration loop with the potential to be
wrong (and which would slow down the bootup process). If loops_per_jiffy
is wrong then our timings are toast anyway.
I think increasing the timeout to 60 secs ought to be enough - 1 sec was
a bit too close to valid delays and i can imagine really high loads
causing 1 sec delays (especially if something like SysRq-T is holding
the tasklist_lock for long).
The write_trylock + __delay in the loop is not a problem or a bug, as
the trylock will at most _increase_ the delay - and our goal is to not
have a false positive, not to be absolutely accurate about the
measurement here.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-19 8:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-12 19:53 BUG: write-lock lockup Charles C. Bennett, Jr.
2006-06-17 17:07 ` Andrew Morton
2006-06-19 7:02 ` [patch] increase spinlock-debug looping timeouts from 1 sec to 1 min Ingo Molnar
2006-06-19 7:59 ` Andrew Morton
2006-06-19 8:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-19 8:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-19 8:32 ` Andrew Morton
2006-06-19 8:35 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2006-06-19 9:13 ` Andrew Morton
2006-06-19 11:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-19 19:55 ` Andrew Morton
2006-06-20 8:06 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-06-20 8:40 ` [patch] fix spinlock-debug looping Ingo Molnar
2006-06-20 8:52 ` Andrew Morton
2006-06-20 9:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-20 9:32 ` Andrew Morton
2006-06-20 9:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-20 16:02 ` Dave Olson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060619083518.GA14265@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=ccb@acm.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.