From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid triggering the softlockup BUG when offline for too long. Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:46:08 -0200 Message-ID: <20061129114607.GA23434@redhat.com> References: <5d6222a80611270847y5e05b994sa9bce57819a3eea5@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: Glauber de Oliveira Costa , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 06:54:26PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote: > > 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? Thanks for pointing it, Keir. After going back to it, I found it to be a small mistake of mine. I was calling the softlockup watchdog before accounting stolen ticks. Calling it after it does the trick. I'll resend the patch soon. -- Glauber de Oliveira Costa Red Hat Inc. "Free as in Freedom"