Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAM_iQpXvuYKn94WjJ9nSjzhk8DzYAvDmdgxsi6cc9CdBfkdTnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180223121456.GZ25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180226203937.GA21543@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
 <CAKA=qzYOU-VtEC5p6djRNmVS0xGe=jpTd3ZgUr++1G3Jj1=PTg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908121933310.7324@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908121933310.7324@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   Josh Hunt <joshhunt00@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:57:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKA=qzY=F-wj8YXhb-B7RahNceeab0rSA=06qBc8+7V-SyY-+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Long standing kernel warning: perfevents: irq loop stuck!
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
        "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com>, jolsa@redhat.com,
        bigeasy@linutronix.de, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:55 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019, Josh Hunt wrote:
> > Was there any progress made on debugging this issue? We are still
> > seeing it on 4.19.44:
>
> I haven't seen anyone looking at this.
>
> Can you please try the patch Ingo posted:
>
>   https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20150501070226.GB18957@gmail.com/
>
> and if it fixes the issue decrease the value from 128 to the point where it
> comes back, i.e. 128 -> 64 -> 32 ...
>
> Thanks,
>
>         tglx

I just checked the machines where this problem occurs and they're both
Nehalem boxes. I think Ingo's patch would only help Haswell machines.
Please let me know if I misread the patch or if what I'm seeing is a
different issue than the one Cong originally reported.

Thanks
-- 
Josh