Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933244Ab3GLPjP (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:39:15 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:20805 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932979Ab3GLPjO (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:39:14 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,653,1367996400"; d="scan'208";a="344601642" Message-ID: <51E0230C.9010509@intel.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:38:52 -0700 From: Dave Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Dave Jones , Markus Trippelsdorf , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel , Peter Anvin , Peter Zijlstra , Dave Hansen Subject: Re: Yet more softlockups. References: <20130704015525.GA8486@redhat.com> <20130705143821.GB325@redhat.com> <20130705160043.GF325@redhat.com> <20130706072408.GA14865@gmail.com> <20130710151324.GA11309@redhat.com> <20130710152015.GA757@x4> <20130710154029.GB11309@redhat.com> <20130712103117.GA14862@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130712103117.GA14862@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2277 Lines: 58 On 07/12/2013 03:31 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Dave Jones wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 05:20:15PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: >> > On 2013.07.10 at 11:13 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: >> > > I get this right after booting.. >> > > >> > > [ 114.516619] perf samples too long (4262 > 2500), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 50000 >> > >> > You can disable this warning by: >> > >> > echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/perf_cpu_time_max_percent >> >> Yes, but why is this even being run when I'm not running perf ? >> >> The only NMI source running should be the watchdog. > > The NMI watchdog is a perf event. > > I've Cc:-ed Dave Hansen, the author of those changes - is this a false > positive or some real problem? The warning comes from calling perf_sample_event_took(), which is only called from one place: perf_event_nmi_handler(). So we can be pretty sure that the perf NMI is firing, or at least that this handler code is running. nmi_handle() says: /* * NMIs are edge-triggered, which means if you have enough * of them concurrently, you can lose some because only one * can be latched at any given time. Walk the whole list * to handle those situations. */ perf_event_nmi_handler() probably gets _called_ when the watchdog NMI goes off. But, it should hit this check: if (!atomic_read(&active_events)) return NMI_DONE; and return quickly. This is before it has a chance to call perf_sample_event_took(). Dave, for your case, my suspicion would be that it got turned on inadvertently, or that we somehow have a bug which bumped up perf_event.c's 'active_events' and we're running some perf code that we don't have to. But, I'm suspicious. I was having all kinds of issues with perf and NMIs taking hundreds of milliseconds. I never isolated it to having a real, single, cause. I attributed it to my large NUMA system just being slow. Your description makes me wonder what I missed, though. -- 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/