LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zachary Amsden <>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <>
Cc: Virtualization Mailing List <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>, Chris Wright <>,
	Rusty Russell <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Dan Hecht <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Akinobu Mita <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	James Morris <>,
	john stultz <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Change softlockup watchdog to ignore stolen time
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:51:51 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

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.

No, it is not unlikely.  4-way SMP VMs idling exhibit this behavior with 
NO_HZ or NO_IDLE_HZ because they get quiet enough to schedule nothing on 
the APs.

And that can happen on native hardware as well.

> Earlier I proposed that sched_clock() return time in unstolen
> nanoseconds, which is how Xen and VMI currently implement it.  If the
> softlockup watchdog uses sched_clock() to measure time, it would
> automatically ignore stolen time, and therefore only report when the
> guest itself locked up.  When running native, sched_clock() returns
> real-time nanoseconds, so the behaviour would be unchanged.
> Does this seem sound?
> Also, softlockup.c's use of jiffies seems archaic now.  Should it be
> converted to use timers?  Mightn't it report lockups just because there
> was no timer event?

This looks good to me, as a first order approximation.  But on native 
hardware, with NO_HZ, this is just broken to begin with.  Perhaps we 
should make SOFTLOCKUP depend on !NO_HZ.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-03-22 23:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-03-22 23:32 Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-03-23  0:14 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-03-23  0:51 ` Zachary Amsden [this message]
2007-03-23  0:11   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH RFC] Change softlockup watchdog to ignore stolen time' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).