search for: __rcu_process_callbacks

...th_common+0x7e/0x96 [ 142.851488] [<ffffffff8106a9ea>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x17 [ 142.851496] [<ffffffff810c6e87>] rcu_do_batch.isra.41+0x5f/0x213 [ 142.851504] [<ffffffff810c687f>] ? check_for_new_grace_period.isra.35+0x38/0x44 [ 142.851512] [<ffffffff810c7101>] __rcu_process_callbacks+0xc6/0xee [ 142.851520] [<ffffffff810c7149>] rcu_process_callbacks+0x20/0x3e [ 142.851527] [<ffffffff81070c27>] __do_softirq+0x87/0x113 [ 142.851536] [<ffffffff812e7b22>] ? __xen_evtchn_do_upcall+0x1a0/0x1dd [ 142.851546] [<ffffffff8162f05c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30 [...

...from_freelist |--0.78%-- __wake_up |--0.55%-- try_to_wake_up --2.28%-- [...] 3.13% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock |--37.55%-- free_one_page |--17.47%-- __cache_free_alien |--4.95%-- __rcu_process_callbacks |--2.93%-- __pte_alloc |--2.68%-- __drain_alien_cache |--2.56%-- ext4_do_update_inode |--2.54%-- try_to_wake_up |--2.46%-- pgd_free |--2.32%-- cache_alloc_refill |--2.32%-- pgd_alloc...

...from_freelist |--0.78%-- __wake_up |--0.55%-- try_to_wake_up --2.28%-- [...] 3.13% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock |--37.55%-- free_one_page |--17.47%-- __cache_free_alien |--4.95%-- __rcu_process_callbacks |--2.93%-- __pte_alloc |--2.68%-- __drain_alien_cache |--2.56%-- ext4_do_update_inode |--2.54%-- try_to_wake_up |--2.46%-- pgd_free |--2.32%-- cache_alloc_refill |--2.32%-- pgd_alloc...

...0x50 [<c010d062>] do_IRQ+0x22/0x30 [<c01048a0>] evtchn_do_upcall+0x70/0xa0 [<c0108c48>] hypervisor_callback+0x2c/0x34 [<c010482c>] force_evtchn_callback+0xc/0x10 [<c011bdde>] release_console_sem+0x5e/0xd0 [<c011bc07>] vprintk+0x197/0x260 [<c012c340>] __rcu_process_callbacks+0xa0/0x100 [<c0141e10>] get_zone_counts+0x50/0x80 [<c011ba67>] printk+0x17/0x20 [<c0142039>] show_free_areas+0x1b9/0x3b0 [<c01407b5>] out_of_memory+0x35/0x90 [<c0141836>] __alloc_pages+0x346/0x430 [<c03eb9f8>] centaur_init_cpu+0x8/0x10 [<c0143da0>] _...

Patch 1 removes CONFIG_SMP Patch 2 removes separate smp_{,r,w}mb()s as a result of patch 1 Patch 4 removes __ia64__ defines from the x86 arch tree Patch 3 is related to patch 4 and changes the VIOAPIC to emulate version 0x20 as a performance gain. It preceeds Patch 4 so as to be more clear about the functional change. Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>

Hello, i have just installed CentOS 4.3 x86-64 on a AMD-64 3000+ machine. After first reboot i get the following error message: RIP <ffffffff80151fe2>{__rcu_process_callbacks+679} RSP <ffffffff804a4498> <0> kernel panic not syncing: Oops Can anyone help me? Thanks Harry

Previous 2.6.31-rc8 kernel was built on F11 and installed with modules on F12. Current kernel has been built on F12 (2.6.31-0.204.rc9.fc12.x86_64) and installed on F12 before loading under Xen 3.4.1. Dmesg log looks similar to Michael Yuong''s ''rc7.git4''  kernel for F12. Boris. --- On Tue, 9/8/09, Boris Derzhavets <bderzhavets@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Boris

...registered has not already occurred. + * Caller must hold rcu_ctrlblk.lock. + */ +static void rcu_start_batch(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp) +{ + if (rcp->next_pending && + rcp->completed == rcp->cur) { + rcp->next_pending = 0; + /* + * next_pending == 0 must be visible in + * __rcu_process_callbacks() before it can see new value of cur. + */ + smp_wmb(); + rcp->cur++; + + rcp->cpumask = cpu_online_map; + } +} + +/* + * cpu went through a quiescent state since the beginning of the grace period. + * Clear it from the cpu mask and complete the grace period if it was the last + * cpu. S...

...registered has not already occurred. + * Caller must hold rcu_ctrlblk.lock. + */ +static void rcu_start_batch(struct rcu_ctrlblk *rcp) +{ + if (rcp->next_pending && + rcp->completed == rcp->cur) { + rcp->next_pending = 0; + /* + * next_pending == 0 must be visible in + * __rcu_process_callbacks() before it can see new value of cur. + */ + smp_wmb(); + rcp->cur++; + + rcp->cpumask = cpu_online_map; + } +} + +/* + * cpu went through a quiescent state since the beginning of the grace period. + * Clear it from the cpu mask and complete the grace period if it was the last + * cpu. S...

Hi Waiman, As promised; here is the paravirt stuff I did during the trip to BOS last week. All the !paravirt patches are more or less the same as before (the only real change is the copyright lines in the first patch). The paravirt stuff is 'simple' and KVM only -- the Xen code was a little more convoluted and I've no real way to test that but it should be stright fwd to make work.

Hi Waiman, As promised; here is the paravirt stuff I did during the trip to BOS last week. All the !paravirt patches are more or less the same as before (the only real change is the copyright lines in the first patch). The paravirt stuff is 'simple' and KVM only -- the Xen code was a little more convoluted and I've no real way to test that but it should be stright fwd to make work.

...t_page_from_freelist |--0.78%-- __wake_up |--0.55%-- try_to_wake_up --2.28%-- [...] 3.13% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock |--37.55%-- free_one_page |--17.47%-- __cache_free_alien |--4.95%-- __rcu_process_callbacks |--2.93%-- __pte_alloc |--2.68%-- __drain_alien_cache |--2.56%-- ext4_do_update_inode |--2.54%-- try_to_wake_up |--2.46%-- pgd_free |--2.32%-- cache_alloc_refill |--2.32%-- pgd_alloc...

...t_page_from_freelist |--0.78%-- __wake_up |--0.55%-- try_to_wake_up --2.28%-- [...] 3.13% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock |--37.55%-- free_one_page |--17.47%-- __cache_free_alien |--4.95%-- __rcu_process_callbacks |--2.93%-- __pte_alloc |--2.68%-- __drain_alien_cache |--2.56%-- ext4_do_update_inode |--2.54%-- try_to_wake_up |--2.46%-- pgd_free |--2.32%-- cache_alloc_refill |--2.32%-- pgd_alloc...

...t_page_from_freelist |--0.78%-- __wake_up |--0.55%-- try_to_wake_up --2.28%-- [...] 3.13% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock |--37.55%-- free_one_page |--17.47%-- __cache_free_alien |--4.95%-- __rcu_process_callbacks |--2.93%-- __pte_alloc |--2.68%-- __drain_alien_cache |--2.56%-- ext4_do_update_inode |--2.54%-- try_to_wake_up |--2.46%-- pgd_free |--2.32%-- cache_alloc_refill |--2.32%-- pgd_alloc...

...t_page_from_freelist |--0.78%-- __wake_up |--0.55%-- try_to_wake_up --2.28%-- [...] 3.13% reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock |--37.55%-- free_one_page |--17.47%-- __cache_free_alien |--4.95%-- __rcu_process_callbacks |--2.93%-- __pte_alloc |--2.68%-- __drain_alien_cache |--2.56%-- ext4_do_update_inode |--2.54%-- try_to_wake_up |--2.46%-- pgd_free |--2.32%-- cache_alloc_refill |--2.32%-- pgd_alloc...

Stamp softlockup thread earlier before do_timer, because the latter is the one to actually trigger lock warning for long-time offline. Or else, I obserevd softlockup warning easily at manual vcpu hot-remove/plug, or when suspend cancel into old context. One point here is to cover both stolen and blocked time to compare with offline threshold. vcpu hotplug falls into ''stolen''