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
next prev parent 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