From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753371AbYIJTZW (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:25:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751846AbYIJTZK (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:25:10 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:54448 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751258AbYIJTZJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:25:09 -0400 Message-ID: <48C81F12.9040208@goop.org> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:25:06 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rambaldi CC: linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: 2.6.27-rc6 xen soft lockup References: <48C7BB39.6090700@xs4all.nl> <48C7FB83.8080904@goop.org> <48C81537.8080409@xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <48C81537.8080409@xs4all.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rambaldi wrote: > The machine has two Intel(R) Xeon(R) E5420's so that gives a total of > 8 cpu's > During the time of the lockup the cpu load, as measured with cacti, > was about 4% > with a increase to 15% at the time the BUG was triggered. So I would > say mostly idle > but not very idle. So that's the cpu load within the domain? How about the overall system load? What other domains are running? > > > Did anything fail or misbehave? > No nothing failed or misbehaved (as far as I could tell) > > With dynticks I guess you mean: CONFIG_NO_HZ ; this option is not set. (In general its a good idea to set it for virtual machines, to avoid spuriously scheduling vcpus.) > I have attached my .config. I have also attached the output of > (date ; cat /proc/interrupts ; sleep 10 ; date ; cat /proc/interrupts > )> /tmp/interrupts > to give an impression about the number of interrupts after 11:30 hours > of uptime. Well, there were 1001 interrupts on cpu 1 in that interval, which shows that the timer interrupts are going at full rate on the idle cpu. I'm a bit confused. I'm not sure what would trigger a lockup at that point, unless it really stopped taking interrupts for a while. Unfortunately the RIP and backtrace are not particularly helpful. I'm assuming the message is spurious, and indicates some other kind of timekeeping bug. > Any other info that you need? Full dmesg output, for completeness. J