From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Erich Focht <efocht@ess.nec.de>, Michael Hohnbaum <hohnbaum@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Crunch time -- the musical. (2.5 merge candidate list 1.5)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 16:26:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <515310000.1035588399@flay> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200210251015.46388.efocht@ess.nec.de>
> You're talking about one of the first 2.5 versions of the patch. It
> changed a lot since then, thanks to your feedback, too.
Right. But I've been struggling to boot anything later than that ;-)
> I thought this problem is well understood! For some reasons independent of
> my patch you have to boot your machines with the "notsc" option. This
> leaves the cache_decay_ticks variable initialized to zero which my patch
> doesn't like. I'm trying to deal with this inside the patch but there is
> still a small window when the variable is zero. In my opinion this needs
> to be fixed somewhere in arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c. Booting a machine
> with cache_decay_ticks=0 is pure nonsense, as it switches off cache
> affinity which you absolutely need! So even if "notsc" is a legal option,
> it should be fixed such that it doesn't leave your machine without cache
> affinity. That would anyway give you a falsified behavior of the O(1)
> scheduler.
OK, well we seem to have it working on one machine, but not on another.
Those should be identical, I suspect it's a timing thing. I'm playing around
with the differences. First major thing I noticed is that the working box has
gcc 3.1, and the non-working gcc 2.95.4 (debian woody). I suspect it's
a subtle timing thing, or something equally horrible.
Changing the non-working box to gcc 3.1 instead (which I *really* don't
want to do long term unless we prove there's a bug in 2.95 ... gcc 3.x
is disgustingly slow) resulted in it getting a little further, but then got the
following oops ... does this provide any clues?
CPU 7 IS NOW UP!
Starting migration thread for cpu 7
Bringing up 8
CPU 8 IS NOW UP!
Starting migration thread for cpu 8
divide error: 0000
CPU: 4
EIP: 0060:[<c011ac38>] Not tainted
EFLAGS: 00010002
EIP is at task_to_steal+0x118/0x260
eax: 00000001 ebx: f01c5040 ecx: 00000000 edx: 00000000
esi: 00000063 edi: f01c5020 ebp: f0197ee8 esp: f0197eac
ds: 0068 es: 0068 ss: 0068
Process swapper (pid: 0, threadinfo=f0196000 task=f01bf060)
Stack: 00000000 f01b4120 00000000 c02ec940 f0197ed4 00000004 00000000 c02ecd3c
c02ec93c 00000000 00000001 0000007d c02ec4a0 00000001 00000004 f0197f1c
c011829c c02ec4a0 00000004 00000004 00000001 00000000 c39376c0 00000000
Call Trace:
[<c011829c>] load_balance+0x8c/0x140
[<c0118588>] scheduler_tick+0x238/0x360
[<c0123347>] tasklet_hi_action+0x77/0xc0
[<c0105420>] default_idle+0x0/0x50
[<c0126bd5>] update_process_times+0x45/0x60
[<c0113faa>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x11a/0x120
[<c0105420>] default_idle+0x0/0x50
[<c010815e>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x1a/0x20
[<c0105420>] default_idle+0x0/0x50
[<c0105420>] default_idle+0x0/0x50
[<c010544a>] default_idle+0x2a/0x50
[<c01054ea>] cpu_idle+0x3a/0x50
[<c011db20>] printk+0x140/0x180
Code: f7 75 cc 8b 55 c8 83 f8 64 0f 4c f0 39 4d ec 8d 46 64 0f 44
This is 2.5.44-mm4 + your patches 1,2,3,5, I think.
M.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-25 23:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-23 21:26 Crunch time -- the musical. (2.5 merge candidate list 1.5) Rob Landley
2002-10-24 16:17 ` Michael Hohnbaum
[not found] ` <200210240750.09751.landley@trommello.org>
2002-10-24 19:01 ` Michael Hohnbaum
2002-10-24 21:51 ` Erich Focht
2002-10-24 22:38 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-25 8:15 ` Erich Focht
2002-10-25 23:26 ` Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2002-10-25 23:45 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-26 0:02 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-26 18:58 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-26 19:14 ` NUMA scheduler (was: 2.5 " Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-27 18:16 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-28 0:32 ` Erich Focht
2002-10-27 23:52 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-28 0:55 ` [Lse-tech] " Michael Hohnbaum
2002-10-28 4:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-28 0:31 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-28 16:34 ` Erich Focht
2002-10-28 16:57 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-28 17:26 ` Erich Focht
2002-10-28 17:35 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-29 0:07 ` [Lse-tech] " Erich Focht
2002-10-28 0:46 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-28 17:11 ` Erich Focht
2002-10-28 18:32 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-28 17:38 ` Erich Focht
2002-10-28 17:36 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-28 23:49 ` Erich Focht
2002-10-29 0:00 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-29 1:12 ` Gerrit Huizenga
2002-10-29 22:39 ` Erich Focht
2002-10-28 7:16 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-10-25 14:46 ` Crunch time -- the musical. (2.5 " Kevin Corry
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-10-25 0:25 Jim Houston
2002-10-25 17:58 ` george anzinger
2002-10-25 19:58 ` Rob Landley
2002-10-26 8:45 ` george anzinger
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=515310000.1035588399@flay \
--to=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=efocht@ess.nec.de \
--cc=hohnbaum@us.ibm.com \
--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