From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [Bug #12465] KVM guests stalling on 2.6.28 (bisected) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:04:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20090120150408.GD21931@elte.hu> References: <1232410363.4768.21.camel@kulgan.wumi.org.au> <20090120113546.GA26571@elte.hu> <1232455343.4895.4.camel@kulgan.wumi.org.au> <20090120125652.GA1457@elte.hu> <20090120130714.GA11048@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Kevin Shanahan , Avi Kivity , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Kevin Shanahan , Mike Galbraith , Peter Zijlstra , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker * Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Another test would be to build the scheduler latency tracer into your > > kernel: > > > > CONFIG_SCHED_TRACER=y > > > > And enable it via: > > > > echo wakeup > /debug/tracing/current_tracer > > > > and you should be seeing the worst-case scheduling latency traces in > > /debug/tracing/trace, and the largest observed latency will be in > > /debug/tracing/tracing_max_latency [in microseconds]. > > Note, the wakeup latency only tests realtime threads, since other > threads can have other issues for wakeup. I could change the wakeup > tracer as wakeup_rt, and make a new "wakeup" that tests all threads, but > it may be difficult to get something accurate. hm, that's a significant regression then. The latency tracer used to measure the highest-prio task in the system - be that RT or non-rt. Ingo