From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86/nmi: wait for all CPUs in check_nmi_watchdog()
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 15:09:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5373792A.6070506@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <537392FE02000078000123AD@mail.emea.novell.com>
On 14/05/14 14:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 14.05.14 at 14:58, <david.vrabel@citrix.com> wrote:
>> The counting of a CPUs NMIs in check_nmi_watchdog() is only reliable
>> if all CPUs have been spinning for 5 or more ticks. There may be
>> delays in waking other CPUs from deep power states that can mean that
>> when the counts are checked CPUs haven't run for long enough.
> 5 ticks ought to be a couple of orders of a magnitude longer than
> the worst possible wakeup time. I.e. I don't buy this argument
> without actual numbers to support it.
>
> Jan
Its not necesserily the wakeup time, although on some systems that does
appear to be a consideration. Simple A
We have a prototype 8 socket system where the cpus on the further
sockets had progressively less nmi delta, and are mostly declared stuck
as the BSP reads the delta before the APs have completed their busy loop.
~Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-14 14:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-14 12:58 [PATCH 0/4] x86/nmi: improve NMI watchdog test David Vrabel
2014-05-14 12:58 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86/nmi: remove spurious local_irq_enable from check_nmi_watchdog() David Vrabel
2014-05-14 13:25 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-14 13:31 ` David Vrabel
2014-05-14 13:53 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-15 11:40 ` Tim Deegan
2014-05-14 12:58 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86/nmi: enable local irqs in wait_for_nmis() David Vrabel
2014-05-14 13:57 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-14 14:38 ` David Vrabel
2014-05-14 14:45 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-15 11:55 ` Tim Deegan
2014-05-14 12:58 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86/nmi: wait for all CPUs in check_nmi_watchdog() David Vrabel
2014-05-14 13:59 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-14 14:09 ` David Vrabel
2014-05-14 14:33 ` Jan Beulich
2014-05-14 14:09 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2014-05-15 11:47 ` Tim Deegan
2014-05-14 12:58 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86/nmi: be less verbose when testing the NMI watchdog David Vrabel
2014-05-15 11:48 ` Tim Deegan
2014-05-14 13:03 ` [PATCH 0/4] x86/nmi: improve NMI watchdog test Andrew Cooper
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=5373792A.6070506@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).