[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH][RESEND]RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix softlockup issue after vcpu hotplug

  • To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 01:39:22 +0000
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:39:08 -0800
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-topic: [PATCH][RESEND]RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix softlockup issue after vcpu hotplug

On 2/2/07 01:23, "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Fair point! I must have compared two 2.6.16 trees...
> Well, that is interesting. I have no idea how SCHED_FIFO/sched_priority=99
> interacts with timer wheels and/or tickless idle modes. I wonder why this
> was changed at all? Perhaps a question for lkml...

Odder still, the softlockup threads are SCHED_FIFO/99 in 2.6.16 too. So the
main change is that rather than an explicit sleep of one second, the thread
now sleeps as TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. I wonder how it gets kicked back to

http://lwn.net/Articles/173648/ is worrying since it seems to state that the
patch intends to make the thread timer-interrupt driven rather than softirq
timer driven. If that means it is jiffy-ticker driver, then perhaps the
softlockup module is incompatible with tickless idle mode (no-idle-hz).

I should probably ask Ingo about it.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.