search for: softlockups

The softlockup watchdog is currently a nuisance in a virtual machine, since the whole system could have the CPU stolen from it for a long period of time. While it would be unlikely for a guest domain to be denied timer interrupts for over 10s, it could happen and any softlockup message would be completely spurious. Earlier I proposed that sched_clock() return time in unstolen nanoseconds, which

The softlockup watchdog is currently a nuisance in a virtual machine, since the whole system could have the CPU stolen from it for a long period of time. While it would be unlikely for a guest domain to be denied timer interrupts for over 10s, it could happen and any softlockup message would be completely spurious. Earlier I proposed that sched_clock() return time in unstolen nanoseconds, which

Here's couple of patches to improve the softlockup watchdog. The first changes the softlockup timer from using jiffies to sched_clock() as a timebase. Xen and VMI implement sched_clock() as counting unstolen time, so time stolen by the hypervisor won't cause the watchdog to bite. The second adds per-cpu enable flags for the watchdog timer. This allows the timer to be disabled when the

Here's couple of patches to improve the softlockup watchdog. The first changes the softlockup timer from using jiffies to sched_clock() as a timebase. Xen and VMI implement sched_clock() as counting unstolen time, so time stolen by the hypervisor won't cause the watchdog to bite. The second adds per-cpu enable flags for the watchdog timer. This allows the timer to be disabled when the

Hi Ingo, This series of patches implements a number of improvements to the softlockup watchdog and its users. They are: 1. Make the watchdog ignore stolen time When running under a hypervisor, the kernel may lose an arbitrary amount of time as "stolen time". This may cause the softlockup watchdog to trigger spruiously. Xen and VMI implement sched_clock() as measuring unstolen time,

Hi Ingo, This series of patches implements a number of improvements to the softlockup watchdog and its users. They are: 1. Make the watchdog ignore stolen time When running under a hypervisor, the kernel may lose an arbitrary amount of time as "stolen time". This may cause the softlockup watchdog to trigger spruiously. Xen and VMI implement sched_clock() as measuring unstolen time,

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''

We have tested the latest xen on VT platform with Intel 915/E8500 chipset. Three platforms (32/PAE/32E) test all are based on SMP, It means that we boot up SMP guest OS in VMX. Here is the test summary: New issue ================================================ No new issue Issues List: ================================================ 1) IA32E/PAE: 32bit Vista RTM network doesn''t

Trying to migrate a 64bit PV guest with 64GB running medium to heavy load on xen 3.4.0, it is showing lot of soft lockups. The softlockups are causing dom0 reboot by the cluster FS. The hardware has 256GB and 32 CPUs. Looking into the hypervisor thru kdb, I see one cpu in sh_resync_all() while all other 31 appear spinning on the shadow_lock. I vaguely remember seeing some thread on this while ago, but just can''t seem to goo...

I am using NFS over brtfs (vanilla 3.8.5) for heavy CoW to clone virtual disks with sizes 20-50GB. It worked OK for a couple of days, but yesterday it crashed. Reboot fixed the problem and I do not see any data corruption. I have a couple of different kdumps, I will include one as text and attach the other ones. I am using Fedora 18 with vanilla 3.8.5. The filesystem is created over a SAN volume

BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! Pid: 2213, comm: smbiod EIP: 0061:[<f4990f2e>] CPU: 0 EIP is at smbiod+0x116/0x16d [smbfs] EFLAGS: 00000246 Tainted: GF (2.6.16-xen-automount #1) EAX: 00000000 EBX: f4996400 ECX: f2c99f68 EDX: f2c98000 ESI: f2c98000 EDI: c06f5780 EBP: f2c99fb8 DS: 007b ES: 007b CR0: 8005003b CR2: b7f77000 CR3: 326e2000 CR4: 00000640

In a previous mail, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > The softlockup watchdog is currently a nuisance in a virtual machine, > since the whole system could have the CPU stolen from it for a long > period of time. While it would be unlikely for a guest domain to be > denied timer interrupts for over 10s, it could happen and any > softlockup message would be completely spurious. I wonder

In a previous mail, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > The softlockup watchdog is currently a nuisance in a virtual machine, > since the whole system could have the CPU stolen from it for a long > period of time. While it would be unlikely for a guest domain to be > denied timer interrupts for over 10s, it could happen and any > softlockup message would be completely spurious. I wonder

Hi list, After a lot of testing + troubleshooting, I guess I'm observing what I am now calling a regression with zaptel 1.4.10 (is it?) As such I call for peer feedback, before either asking Digium install support or filing a bug. Thanks in advance! System: HP Proliant DL380 G5 with 2x PCI-X + 1x PCIe riser card OS: Centos 5 Kernel: 2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 (also tested under

The following changes since commit 33807f4f0daec3b00565c2932d95f614f5833adf: Merge branch 'for-next' of git://git.samba.org/sfrench/cifs-2.6 (2014-03-11 11:53:42 -0700) are available in the git repository at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rusty/linux.git tags/virtio-next-for-linus for you to fetch changes up to fc4324b4597c4eb8907207e82f9a6acec84dd335:

The following changes since commit 33807f4f0daec3b00565c2932d95f614f5833adf: Merge branch 'for-next' of git://git.samba.org/sfrench/cifs-2.6 (2014-03-11 11:53:42 -0700) are available in the git repository at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rusty/linux.git tags/virtio-next-for-linus for you to fetch changes up to fc4324b4597c4eb8907207e82f9a6acec84dd335:

Hi, I'm trying to compile UML with LLVM. However, LLVM-LD hangs whiile linking modules. It's consuming 99% of the CPU llvm-ld -v -r -o kernel/built-in.o kernel/sched.o kernel/fork.o kernel/exec_domain.o kernel/panic.o kernel/printk.o kernel/profile.o kernel/exit.o kernel/itimer.o kernel/time.o kernel/softirq.o kernel/resource.o kernel/sysctl.o kernel/capability.o kernel/ptrace.o

On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:10 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 04:04:13PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:07 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 07:53:08PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 2:34 PM Jason Wang

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 11:43:08AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:10 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 04:04:13PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:07 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at

Hi, when creating a bigger (> 50 GB) HVM guest with maxmem > memory we get softlockups from time to time. kernel: [ 802.084335] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 22s! [xend:31351] I tracked this down to the call of xc_domain_set_pod_target() and further p2m_pod_set_mem_target(). Unfortunately I can this check only with xen-4.2.2 as I don''t have a machine with enough mem...