Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757690Ab3FFDvM (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2013 23:51:12 -0400 Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:38260 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756409Ab3FFDvK (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jun 2013 23:51:10 -0400 Message-ID: <51B00719.20406@candelatech.com> Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:50:49 -0700 From: Ben Greear Organization: Candela Technologies User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130402 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Dumazet CC: Tejun Heo , Rusty Russell , Joe Lawrence , Linux Kernel Mailing List , stable@vger.kernel.org, "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Jouni Malinen , Vasanthakumar Thiagarajan , Senthil Balasubramanian , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: stop_machine lockup issue in 3.9.y. References: <51AE27D5.7050202@candelatech.com> <87sj0xry1k.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <20130605071539.GA3429@mtj.dyndns.org> <51AF6E54.3050108@candelatech.com> <20130605184807.GD10693@mtj.dyndns.org> <51AF8D4B.4090407@candelatech.com> <51AF91F5.6090801@candelatech.com> <51AFA677.9010605@candelatech.com> <20130605211157.GK10693@mtj.dyndns.org> <1370482492.24311.308.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20130606031444.GA12335@mtj.dyndns.org> <1370489181.24311.318.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <51B004CD.6080007@candelatech.com> <1370490403.24311.322.camel@edumazet-glaptop> In-Reply-To: <1370490403.24311.322.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1585 Lines: 46 On 06/05/2013 08:46 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 20:41 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: >> On 06/05/2013 08:26 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: >>> On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 20:14 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Ah, so, that's why it's showing up now. We probably have had the same >>>> issue all along but it used to be masked by the softirq limiting. Do >>>> you care to revive the 10 iterations limit so that it's limited by >>>> both the count and timing? We do wanna find out why softirq is >>>> spinning indefinitely tho. >>> >>> Yes, no problem, I can do that. >> >> Limiting it to 5000 fixes my problem, so if you wanted it larger than 10, that would >> be fine by me. >> >> I can send a version of my patch easily enough if we can agree on the max number of >> loops (and if indeed my version of the patch is acceptable). > > Well, 10 was the prior limit and seems really fine. > > The non update on jiffies seems quite exceptional condition (I hope...) > > We use in Google a patch triggering warning is a thread holds the cpu > without taking care to need_resched() for more than xx ms Well, I'm sure that patch works nicely until the clock stops moving forward :) I'll post a patch with limit of 10 shortly. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/