From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 2/4] Revert "timers: do not raise softirq unconditionally" Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 20:17:14 -0600 Message-ID: <55136C2A.60508@hp.com> References: <20150317163541.080310081@goodmis.org> <20150317163617.218582800@goodmis.org> <20150317163551.3093b6c2@gandalf.local.home> <1426753029.4168.80.camel@gmail.com> <20150319122611.0d002d48@gandalf.local.home> <550AFC6A.4050901@hp.com> <1426960943.4677.34.camel@gmail.com> <1427085774.3151.7.camel@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users , Thomas Gleixner , Carsten Emde , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , John Kacur , Paul Gortmaker To: Mike Galbraith Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1427085774.3151.7.camel@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org On 03/22/2015 10:42 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> Why can't we just Let swapper be the owner when in irq with no dummy? >> Thanks Mike for the suggestion. That may also work. Unfortunately somehow I'm still having a hung problem, which may be related to the priority of the interrupt handler task. >> I have "don't raise timer unconditionally" re-applied, the check for a >> running callback bits of my nohz_full fixlet, and the below on top of >> that, and all _seems_ well. > > But not so well on 64 core box. That has nothing to do with hacklet > though, re-applying timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch > without thta hangs the 64 core box during boot with no help from me > other than to patchlet to let nohz work at all, seems there's another > issue lurking there. Hohum. Without 'don't raise..", big box is fine. > If you get your patch to work, I could try my test that was able to reproduce the problem consistently. Thanks, Mak. > -Mike >