> That's really not supposed to happen. It could be useful to put printfs > in thread_setrun in the if ((processor = th->bound_processor) == > PROCESSOR_NULL) case, which is not supposed to happen, to determine > when we are actually getting there with such case.
Excuse me the delay. After add prints in this case, I conclude that the process is not entering in It. I have reenabled the another prints, and adding more in other cases. It seems that cpu 0 enter in a ast lock loop. You can see It here: http://paste.debian.net/1121179/ El vie., 15 nov. 2019 a las 9:57, Almudena Garcia (< liberamenso10...@gmail.com>) escribió: > > That's really not supposed to happen. It could be useful to put printfs > > in thread_setrun in the if ((processor = th->bound_processor) == > > PROCESSOR_NULL) case, which is not supposed to happen, to determine > > when we are actually getting there with such case. > > Interesting tip. I'll try to experiment with this > > > I had been looking at the linux code, it really isn't smp-safe, so we > > will need to keep ext2fs bound to cpu0 to avoid any kind of concurrency > > when it accesses the disk. It might even be useful to put some > > assertions to make sure that no code of linux/ is getting to run on > > cpu1. > Thanks by the info. I'll research about this > > These days, I'm a bit busy, but I'll continue this project in a weeks > > Thanks for your effort > > > El vie., 15 nov. 2019 a las 1:19, Samuel Thibault (< > samuel.thiba...@gnu.org>) escribió: > >> Hello, >> >> Just a Re: on some IRC discussion. We were trying to set bound_processor >> by default to cpu0 to make sure that everything happens on just one cpu >> by default, to put things on cpu1 progressively. But that was leading to >> ext2fs hanging. At some point it was mentioned that >> >> “sometimes, default_pset.runq.runq.next.next shows the same thread than >> processor_ptr[0].runq.runq.next” >> >> That's really not supposed to happen. It could be useful to put printfs >> in thread_setrun in the if ((processor = th->bound_processor) == >> PROCESSOR_NULL) case, which is not supposed to happen, to determine >> when we are actually getting there with such case. >> >> I had been looking at the linux code, it really isn't smp-safe, so we >> will need to keep ext2fs bound to cpu0 to avoid any kind of concurrency >> when it accesses the disk. It might even be useful to put some >> assertions to make sure that no code of linux/ is getting to run on >> cpu1. >> >> Samuel >> >>
