Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*ipvs_syncmaster\s+brings\s+cpu\s+to\s+100\%\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*ipvs_syncmaster\s+brings\s+cpu\s+to\s+100\%\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:28:08 +0900; Yes, although he is kind of quiet. I've prepared a patch, which reverts the change which was introduced by Nishanth Aravamudan in February. I have CCed him, Dave Miller, Wensong Zhang, Julian Anastas; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00059.html (14,322 bytes)
2. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:34:00 -0700; Was the 100% cpu utilization only occurring on Xeon processors? Care to try to use msleep_interruptible() instead of ssleep(), as opposed to schedule_timeout()? In your patch, you do not need to set; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00060.html (11,512 bytes)
3. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:05:10 +0900; That seems to be the only case where were this problem has been observed. I don't have such a processor myself, so I haven't actually been able to produce the problem locally. One reason I posted thi; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00061.html (15,761 bytes)
4. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:12:32 +0900; [snip] Here is that version of the patch. Nishanth, I take it that I do not need to set TASK_INTERRUPTABLE before calling msleep_interruptible(), please let me know if I am wrong. Luca, please test.; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00062.html (14,297 bytes)
5. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:11:04 -0700; Yes, exactly. I'm just trying to narrow it down to see if it's the task state that's causing the issue (which, to be honest, doesn't make a lot of sense to me -- with ssleep() your load average will; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00065.html (12,155 bytes)
6. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Luca Maranzano <liuk001@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:52:02 +0200; Just to add more info, please note the output of "ps": debld1:~# ps aux|grep ipvs root 3748 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? D 12:09 0:00 [ipvs_syncmaster] root 3757 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? D 12:09 0:00 [ipvs_syncbackup] Note th; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00068.html (13,937 bytes)
7. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:21:09 -0700; [trimmed lvs-users from my reply, as it is a closed list] The msleep_interruptible() change should fix that. But that does not show 100% CPU utilisation at all, it shows 0. Did you mean to say your l; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00069.html (14,181 bytes)
8. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Luca Maranzano <liuk001@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 16:44:09 +0200; [trimmed Cc to avoid spamming...] Ok, just to summarize the long thread from the beginning: The goal: setting up a Local Director with IPVS with state synchronization, failover and failback. The hard; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00071.html (16,331 bytes)
9. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:51:12 -0700; Ok, so when whomever mentioned "CPU utilisation" they were mistaken. The load average being 2 is due to ssleep(). The msleep_interruptible() version of the patch should fix that up. It really doesn't; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00075.html (16,954 bytes)
10. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:23:09 +0900; he full discussion is available online at the follwoing URL: I can get than information and post it all here if that is desirable. http://archive.linuxvirtualserver.org/html/lvs-users/2005-09/msg0003; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00078.html (15,197 bytes)
11. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 06:26:39 -0700; Yes, the information in that thread is the same as what Luca said. It's a load average problem, not a CPU utilisation problem (those threads are sleeping!) If Luca could test the msleep_interruptible; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00079.html (15,321 bytes)
12. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:00:12 +0300 (EEST); Agreed. It seems your initial conversion was based on wrong assumptions, quoting you: As all signals are blocked from daemonize and even explicitly later it was not necessary to convert to non-inter; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00083.html (10,912 bytes)
13. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Luca Maranzano <liuk001@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:59:44 +0200; First of all thank you all for your precious support! :-) The two machines on which I discovered the problem are now in production and I cannot for the moment make tests, but I hope to have some othe; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00102.html (11,162 bytes)
14. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:28:08 +0900; Yes, although he is kind of quiet. I've prepared a patch, which reverts the change which was introduced by Nishanth Aravamudan in February. I have CCed him, Dave Miller, Wensong Zhang, Julian Anastas; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00163.html (14,659 bytes)
15. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:34:00 -0700; Was the 100% cpu utilization only occurring on Xeon processors? Care to try to use msleep_interruptible() instead of ssleep(), as opposed to schedule_timeout()? In your patch, you do not need to set; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00164.html (11,818 bytes)
16. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:05:10 +0900; That seems to be the only case where were this problem has been observed. I don't have such a processor myself, so I haven't actually been able to produce the problem locally. One reason I posted thi; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00165.html (16,125 bytes)
17. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:12:32 +0900; [snip] Here is that version of the patch. Nishanth, I take it that I do not need to set TASK_INTERRUPTABLE before calling msleep_interruptible(), please let me know if I am wrong. Luca, please test.; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00166.html (14,692 bytes)
18. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:11:04 -0700; Yes, exactly. I'm just trying to narrow it down to see if it's the task state that's causing the issue (which, to be honest, doesn't make a lot of sense to me -- with ssleep() your load average will; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00169.html (12,550 bytes)
19. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Luca Maranzano <liuk001@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:52:02 +0200; Just to add more info, please note the output of "ps": debld1:~# ps aux|grep ipvs root 3748 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? D 12:09 0:00 [ipvs_syncmaster] root 3757 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? D 12:09 0:00 [ipvs_syncbackup] Note th; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00172.html (14,360 bytes)
20. Re: ipvs_syncmaster brings cpu to 100% (score: 1): Author: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:21:09 -0700; [trimmed lvs-users from my reply, as it is a closed list] The msleep_interruptible() change should fix that. But that does not show 100% CPU utilisation at all, it shows 0. Did you mean to say your l; /archives/netdev/2005-09/msg00173.html (14,643 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]