Re: [RFC PATCH] kick ksoftirqd more often to please soft lockupdetector

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 14:16 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> Looks like everyone is guilty:
> 
> [  422.765336] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 3 NET_RX ffffffff813f0aa0
> ...
> [  423.971878] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 4 BLOCK ffffffff812519c8
> [  423.985093] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 6 TASKLET ffffffff8103422e
> [  423.993157] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 7 SCHED ffffffff8105e2e1
> [  424.001018] softirq took longer than 1/4 tick: 9 RCU ffffffff810a0fed
> [  424.008691] softirq loop took longer than 1/2 tick need_resched:

/me kicks himself for not printing the actual duration.. :-)

> As expected whenever that 1/2 tick message gets emitted the softirq
> handler is almost running in a need_resched() context.

Yeah.. that's quite expected.

> So is it a good idea to get more aggressive about scheduling ksoftrrqd? 

Nah, moving away from softirq more like. I'll put moving the
load-balancer into a kthread on the todo list. And it looks like
everybody else should move to kthreads too.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/