From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F862C433E2 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:36:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7860520578 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:36:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=digitalocean.com header.i=@digitalocean.com header.b="GX8zxuVh" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727908AbgGJNg4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2020 09:36:56 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35666 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726867AbgGJNgy (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2020 09:36:54 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-x341.google.com (mail-ot1-x341.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::341]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2252C08C5CE for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x341.google.com with SMTP id 72so4213376otc.3 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:36:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=digitalocean.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Nmcel6hnCJlIj22fihRFD6BrYZLNIkP5+FTjhcnw9o8=; b=GX8zxuVhdC9uja2zMn8o2d29S/xFaumMWA9hqdJJaq4Yt+cFx8noGVO2kG/WtV0f8A /bUlgvYm4jLyOy4+NzLFTMxf91WwW97uDdzz7ske13qLjXYQj8Xx6ZTY6ac7NROEr5SA SxzzZLU1A2SNWhD4CAjRWAvnFFXkdDQNuVDAg= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Nmcel6hnCJlIj22fihRFD6BrYZLNIkP5+FTjhcnw9o8=; b=ddzbN92+I2COOwhZvGFWwB1vw316d9eyz59HO9B94dpOXh1UK7v5WygKShn/Hsn2Wl 9pYPzx5oMhu15F7bxIWmBy+OOwX7HuIyrTStrSALGZEuTiVXpgu7O4+ur+U/X6WwrDnT MuU3sX6o5INPUtbaEYmLAhxN7T0euvKrRiZO+kVF7mF2Y8JflYjyLTF6jT+XBLJhMyk0 r/LfcV7s0lE3rtvn7eLkjAJ4qnoUxlF+K62/SrF72UImHZU75btT9s7czi9VTg0LDHxr bsXZ3wUCAAQctrb5CwzSdddTWRJih+44mfZPSeu12Osm02ECyt7svJKfzxc8wJDoaCOx PUuw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5326CQRQFNwu/heU50O30qeFDu8fx0GaV2SpXu6yHzFZa3uZ34Ox ptcnjziTTI5+5S4t6ElVqOzbqwLcL3pqu+5P99XNKg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwVBbcsNjNQvs02Ak+32h+kJHFtnmZ1zNowEhHhzLcOKvCq1Vt5X4LsucLlQ1RJzMaKN62kgE/jK9bd0JxcWcM= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7a98:: with SMTP id l24mr59311273otn.75.1594388213194; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 06:36:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Vineeth Remanan Pillai Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 09:36:42 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 14/16] irq: Add support for core-wide protection of IRQ and softirq To: "Li, Aubrey" Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan , Julien Desfossez , Peter Zijlstra , Tim Chen , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Paul Turner , Linus Torvalds , "Joel Fernandes (Google)" , Linux List Kernel Mailing , Subhra Mazumdar , =?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBXZWlzYmVja2Vy?= , Kees Cook , Greg Kerr , Phil Auld , Aaron Lu , Aubrey Li , Valentin Schneider , Mel Gorman , Pawan Gupta , Paolo Bonzini , Joel Fernandes , Vineeth Pillai , Chen Yu , Christian Brauner , Tim Chen , "Paul E . McKenney" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Aubrey, On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:19 AM Li, Aubrey wrote: > > Hi Joel/Vineeth, > [...] > The problem is gone when we reverted this patch. We are running multiple > uperf threads(equal to cpu number) in a cgroup with coresched enabled. > This is 100% reproducible on our side. > > Just wonder if anything already known before we dig into it. > Thanks for reporting this. We haven't seen any lockups like this in our testing yet. Could you please add more information on how to reproduce this? Was it a simple uperf run without any options or was it running any specific kind of network test? We shall also try to reproduce this and investigate. Thanks, Vineeth