Re: soft lockup detector & virtualisation

[Eric B Munson]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:39:38 -0800, john stultz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Lately I've noticed quite a few soft lockup bugs being reported.
> > In many of them, they're coming from inside virtual guests.
> >
> > Is the softlockup detector fundamentally broken in this situation ?
> >
> > If the host doesn't schedule the guest for whatever reason,
> > or the user suspends the VM and resumes it later ?
> >
> > Here's the most recent example:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=563767
> >
> > In many of these, the code where it's "stuck" isn't anything
> > special, which is why I think the guest just hasn't had a
> > timeslice in 185 seconds.
> >
> > Is there some way we can perhaps detect we're running virtualised,
> > and disable the detector automatically ?
>
> I think Eric's work (See "Add check for suspended vm in softlockup
> detector" sent out today) tries to address this issue.
>
> thanks
> -john


The work I have been doing specifically handles the case where the 
hypervisor suspends the guest.  There is talk of extending that work to 
handle preemption as well, which I think will cover your use case.

Eric
--
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/