Bug 524976
Summary: | lock holder preemption on KVM VMs | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | Reporter: | Bill Braswell <bbraswel> |
Component: | kvm | Assignee: | Tim Burke <tburke> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Lawrence Lim <llim> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | 5.4 | CC: | chrisw, jkachuck, knoel, tao, tburke, tools-bugs, virt-maint, ykaul |
Target Milestone: | rc | ||
Target Release: | 5.5 | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2010-05-06 13:21:22 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 580948 |
Description
Bill Braswell
2009-09-22 20:44:00 UTC
Event posted on 09-28-2009 10:43am EDT by Glen Johnson ------- Comment From lnx1138.ibm.com 2009-09-28 10:40 EDT------- Has Red Hat had a chance to try the additional performance tests as suggested by Andrew? This event sent from IssueTracker by jkachuck issue 338069 Does guest spin lock detector backport is enough here or do we need any potential scheduler setting changed? IMO the first should be enough, at least for a start The backport deadlocks ;-( Event posted on 12-14-2009 10:04am EST by Glen Johnson ------- Comment From habanero.com 2009-12-14 09:56 EDT------- I recommend we close this bug as will_not_fix and focus on Red Hat 6 to ensure we have no issues there. For 5.x, I suggest we encourage customers to use 1-way VMs first, and only use SMP VMs when absolutely necessary. This event sent from IssueTracker by jkachuck issue 338069 |