public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox