Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:19:55 +0900
From:      Taku YAMAMOTO <taku@tackymt.homeip.net>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Native preemption is the culprit [was Re: today's CURRENT lockups]
Message-ID:  <20040709111955.2901ce5b.taku@tackymt.homeip.net>
In-Reply-To: <200407081317.53981.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <20040705184940.GA2651@tybalt.greiner.local> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040706001249.2853I-100000@fledge.watson.org> <20040708222143.0f24c076.taku@tackymt.homeip.net> <200407081317.53981.jhb@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:17:53 -0400
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 July 2004 09:21 am, Taku YAMAMOTO wrote:
> > greetings,
> >
> >
> > A quick glance showed me that there are some interesting code paths in
> > sched_ule.c that can be problematic in SMP case.
> >
> >   1. sched_choose() => kseq_idled() => sched_add()
> >   2. sched_choose() => kseq_assign() => sched_add()
> >   3. sched_runnable() => kseq_assign() => sched_add()
> >
> > Here is the patch that re-enables preemption except for the above three
> > cases.
> 
> This looks correct.  I'll test it locally first.  Has it worked for you all 
> day?

My machine (HTT) has been up for 20 hours without a hang since last update.
I tried to stress it in various ways (fsck -n, buildworld & buildkernel in
parallel, burning a CD, etc.) but failed to crash it.

I'm bit afraid since the code is not tested on real SMP machines.
How is it going on yours?


-- 
-|-__    YAMAMOTO, Taku
 | __ <	    <taku@tackymt.homeip.net>

Post Scriptum to the people who know me as taku@cent.saitama-u.ac.jp:
	My email address has been changed since April,
	because I've left the university.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040709111955.2901ce5b.taku>