From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Soete Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Mysterious hangs with parisc Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:22:40 +0000 Message-ID: <44AD54F0.90508@tiscali.be> References: <20060624015935.GJ12481@quicksilver.road.mcmartin.ca> <200606240241.k5O2fALQ001885@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> <20060705164734.GB30640@athena.road.mcmartin.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com, John David Anglin , parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org To: Kyle McMartin Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <20060705164734.GB30640@athena.road.mcmartin.ca> List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: parisc-linux-bounces@lists.parisc-linux.org Kyle McMartin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 10:41:09PM -0400, John David Anglin wrote: > >>This is not to say that the locking code can't be improved. As far >>as I can tell, hpux doesn't spin. It has pre-abitration, priorities >>for waiters, etc. When a lock is released, suwaiters is called to >>pass the lock in a fair way to another waiter if there is one. >> > > > HPUX spinlocks /do/ spin, afaict. They just keep track of how long > they've been spinning for (and panic after 60 seconds.) On release of > a spinlock, they also donate it to another cpu, which is, I guess, the > arbitration thing. I can back this up with disassembly, but I wouldn't > be comfortable doing it over mail, due to copyright infringement and > blah blah. > > Cheers, > Kyle M. Cool ;-) That said to followup another related thread , the do_gettimeofday() jejb's patch doesn't help: after just some hours of my stress test: top - 17:52:25 up 21:57, 3 users, load average: 8.16, 7.18, 6.91 Tasks: 84 total, 5 running, 79 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu0 : 53.7% us, 35.3% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 0.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 11.0% si Cpu1 : 86.1% us, 10.2% sy, 0.0% ni, 0.0% id, 0.7% wa, 0.0% hi, 2.9% si Mem: 4114224k total, 4018628k used, 95596k free, 483816k buffers Swap: 250872k total, 4k used, 250868k free, 436632k cached I still encountered the well know BUG: soft lockup detected BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#1! Backtrace: [<00000000101122b0>] dump_stack+0x18/0x28 [<0000000010171c60>] softlockup_tick+0x128/0x158 [<0000000010151a00>] run_local_timers+0x28/0x38 [<0000000010152770>] update_process_times+0x58/0xd8 [<000000001011cc08>] smp_do_timer+0x70/0x80 [<00000000101134b4>] timer_interrupt+0xdc/0x1e0 [<0000000010171e04>] handle_IRQ_event+0x74/0xd0 [<0000000010171f1c>] __do_IRQ+0xbc/0x268 [<0000000010113e74>] do_cpu_irq_mask+0x114/0x1e0 [<0000000010104074>] intr_return+0x0/0x1c BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! Backtrace: [<00000000101122b0>] dump_stack+0x18/0x28 [<0000000010171c60>] softlockup_tick+0x128/0x158 [<0000000010151a00>] run_local_timers+0x28/0x38 [<0000000010152770>] update_process_times+0x58/0xd8 [<000000001011cc08>] smp_do_timer+0x70/0x80 [<00000000101134b4>] timer_interrupt+0xdc/0x1e0 [<0000000010171e04>] handle_IRQ_event+0x74/0xd0 [<0000000010171f1c>] __do_IRQ+0xbc/0x268 [<0000000010113e74>] do_cpu_irq_mask+0x114/0x1e0 [<0000000010104074>] intr_return+0x0/0x1c (only a small diff with previous failures: here it shows also 'CPU#1!') Otoh previous test seems to show that older gcc-3.3 would produce a more operational kernel but I haven't any idea where to look for? All guide line would be welcome. Thanks, Joel _______________________________________________ parisc-linux mailing list parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux