Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753779AbbLFCgw (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Dec 2015 21:36:52 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:35254 "EHLO mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753475AbbLFCgv (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Dec 2015 21:36:51 -0500 Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 08:06:47 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sasha.levin@oracle.com Subject: Re: Possible issue with commit 4961b6e11825? Message-ID: <20151206023647.GX3430@ubuntu> References: <20151204232022.GA15891@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20151205190124.GA1990@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151205190124.GA1990@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1607 Lines: 34 On 05-12-15, 11:01, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > And it was getting lucky. In a set of 24 two-hour runs (triple parallel) > on an earlier commit (not 3497d206c4d9, no clue what I was thinking) got > me two failed runs, for a total of 49 reports of one of RCU's grace-period > kthreads being starved, no reports of rcutorture's kthreads being starved, > and no hangs on shutdown. So much lower failure rate, but still failures. > > At this point, I am a bit disgusted with bisection, so my next test cycle > (36 two-hour runs on a system capable of doing three concurrently) is on > the most recent -rcu, but with CPU hotplug disabled. If that shows failures, > then I hammer 3497d206c4d9 hard. > > Anyway, if you have any ideas as to what might be happening, please don't > keep them a secret! I can be the least helpful here (based on knowledge), but I am not able to find a reason for this diff in 3497d206c4d9: - if (!hrtimer_callback_running(hr)) - __hrtimer_start_range_ns(hr, cpuctx->hrtimer_interval, - 0, HRTIMER_MODE_REL_PINNED, 0); + hrtimer_start(hr, cpuctx->hrtimer_interval, HRTIMER_MODE_REL_PINNED); The commit talks *only* about s/__hrtimer_start_range_ns/hrtimer_start but not at all on why !hrtimer_callback_running(hr) was removed. Perhaps there was a reason :) -- viresh -- 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/